Talk:Ranavalona III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Ranavalona III is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 24, 2013.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 20, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
May 15, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Working on this article[edit]

I am the only one currently working on articles relating to the history and culture of Madagascar and intend to get to all the Merina monarchs but it may take a little time. Thank you for your patience. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Okay this article is now my top priority. Edits to follow. - Lemurbaby (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I wish you good luck. I'm really interested in the Kings and Queens of Madagascar, also, but I know very little on this subject.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ranavalona III/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 02:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. I will try to post comments within the next 24 hours. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments: The article looks good. Here are a few things:

  • "also known as Ranavalo-Manjaka III" — not mentioned in the body of the article (with a citation), and furthermore, if it is an alternative name, you should create a redirect for it. Depending on who you talk to, you might even want to put that name in bold once the redirect is created (so people who get redirected can quickly see why). But I'm not sure if everyone would agree with that last point, so maybe avoid bold for now.
  • Thanks for drawing my attention to that point. This was someone else's unsourced contribution and actually it has more to do with a title than a name so I removed it. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "menalamba uprising" is red-linked in the lead and needs a brief explanation (possibly in parentheses). Alternatively, you could (I think) create a short stub article for the topic.
I provided a short explanation and created the stub article. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


  • "playing lotto" - You'll need to explain, even if you have to simply called it a "traditional Malagasy game". Was it a board game or something outdoors? Most English-speaking readers would read it as "lottery" otherwise.
Actually that was taken straight from an English-language period source and I wondered what it meant as well but couldn't find an explanation. I wish I could find a description because I hate to remove it... Lemurbaby (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Please send me the exact quote and I'll try to run it by my contacts in Madagascar. I want to get this explained before I pass the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... I wonder if it's related to this: see page 3 on this PDF – VisionHolder « talk » 06:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Nice find! Maybe that's similar, but since the author gives it an English name I suspect this was some kind of 19th century game introduced by the Brits. At any rate we can't be totally sure of the origin, but it does clearly seem to involve cards. I changed it to "parlor games", the broad category of games that this kind of thing would fall under. Do you feel all right with that? Lemurbaby (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
What exactly does the source say, and how does it suggest that it's a card game? I just want to be sure. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I found a definition of lotto here. It's not a card game exactly, but it IS a parlor game, which is all that really matters. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Excellent find! There's just that one (new) bullet point at the bottom about a disambiguation link, and after that, you're good. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "Ranavalona III had the misfortune to be caught up in..." – I suggest removing the "misfortune" part... not very encyclopedic or neutral.
Changed - though I'm not totally sold on the new phrasing. Let me know what you think. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "French aggressions against Malagasy towns along the coast intensified in the final months of the reign of Ranavalona II and were ongoing at the time that Ranavalona III was crowned the new queen in the summer of 1893." – 1893 or 1883?
Good eye! Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I will resume the review starting at the "Exile" section later today. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

  • "Gallieni exiled Ranavalona from Madagascar on January 28... Throughout the week spent traveling to the eastern port of Toamasina... At Toamasina on March 6..." – That sounds like more than a week of traveling. Can you explain? Or was she only drinking heavily during the fist week?
The period source stated she was drinking en route, but sources have provided contradictory information about the length of the trip. I changed it to "days" to be less specific. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "...bastard child of a French soldier." – Personally, I'm fine with the word and I don't censor, but I'm wondering if people might see it as non-neutral. Maybe use "illegitimate"?
Illegitimate it is. :) Lemurbaby (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "Ranavalona and her family would board..." – I think past tense is appropriate here. The same in the next sentence.
Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "The queen was eager to discover mainland France..." – I think "see" or "visit" fits better here than "discover"
Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • There's a link ("Saint-Germain") that points to a disambiguation page, but I'm not sure what exactly it's supposed to point to. Please fix it. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for taking the time to be so thorough! Lemurbaby (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, I think the article is in great shape. Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 23:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this and offer your remarks. I'll be making changes over the next few days, hopefully. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:

Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 08:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi Kavebear, I like the images you've added to the article, and I think we should be able to keep the photo of Marie-Louise as well as the two magazine images and the petit beurre box. What if we set the two magazine illustrations side by side (the three exiles in Algeria, beside the illustration of their arrival in Paris)? Then the Petit Beurre image beneath it on the left side, and the Marie Louise image in the death section. The P.B. image doesn't quite fit in the death section as it was referenced earlier, and the two magazine illustrations of Marie Louise doesn't actually do a very good job of showing what she really looked like. If you're okay with this, I'll make the change. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I be okay with that. I was just concern about having too many images.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Great to see this person pulled from history and highlighted here. Ive done some stubs in the past but wow for for this one. Madagascar does not get enough attention and nice to see an attempt to balance it up. Well done to any editors involved Victuallers (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)