Talk:Sihanaka/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, seems to be an interesting article. I'll finish this review within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 12:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Although not essential and not a requirement for GA, are there any pictures of the Sihanaka to put into the article?

Added

"At the turn of the 19th century they came under the control of the Boina Kingdom before submitting to Imerina" - should this be linked or explained as the Merina Kingdom?

The Kingdom of Imerina is linked in the previous sentence

The lead summarises the article well, so this meets the GA criteria
"...under the leadership of king Andrianampoinimerina" - should 'king' be capitalised?

Done

"spurred the arrival of Merina missionaries in Sihanaka country" - Sihanaka country? Did they have boundaries/territories?

The boundaries between the different territories/kingdoms were often porous and shifting. Neighboring territories had kings (proper kingdoms) but this one didn't have a king, so it can't be called a kingdom. Would it sound better as "territory" or "land"? Both of them sound a little too informal to me...

"After the feast concluded" - is this meant to be in past tense? Wouldn't it sound better concludes?

Edited

The Language section is very short and also unreferenced, could it be either expanded or merged?

I've added a reference now. I'm using the same structure across all the Malagasy ethnic group articles, and it's one I took from the only FA article I could find on an ethnic group. In that article, language is its own section. I know it's short... there's so little available on any of these groups on the net (or anywhere). My preference would be to leave it as is for consistency with the other articles, if you don't have a strong objection.

Thank you for reviewing this! - Lemurbaby (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

All the links picked up by the toolserver appear to be in working order

On hold

This is generally a well written and compact article, which explains why this review feels short. It is broad, comprehensive and thoroughly referenced - the only problems I could find were minor prose issues, along with a unreferenced (and short) section. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days, but it shouldn't take too much for this to pass. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this, Jaguar! I'll try to come back to this over the next few days if work IRL lets me. Stay tuned. - Lemurbaby (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thank you for addressing all of them! The article meets the "broad in coverage" criteria, and along side of that, it is well written and comprehensive. I'll promote this now ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]