Talk:Antananarivo/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Brigade Piron (talk · contribs) 13:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First comments[edit]

Hello. I'm delighted to offer to review this - you've done a really cracking job on this article and there's very little still to do. Comments to follow. Incidentally, I have made a few corrections (as I'm sure you've noticed) to the French in the article - I'm assuming that orthodox French is spoken, so if not please revert. I'm certainly no expert. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BP - it's my first attempt at a city article, but as one of only three Vital Articles about Madagascar (the others being Madagascar and Rainilaiarivony), it had to get done. :) Thank you for offering to review it so quickly after I posted it on the GA nom page, where so many articles languish for half a year...! - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main issues seem to be consistent style things but there are a couple of referencing issues too. All very minor, of course. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The city of Antananarivo was originally the site of a town called Analamanga, meaning "Blue Forest" in the central highlands dialect of the Malagasy language." - Ref please.

Done. I put references at the end of all the info that comes from them, but for clarity I've just repeated that ref immediately after that sentence. - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check the bracketed Malagasy words to make sure that they are all consistently capitalized or uncapitalised? There's a mix at the moment. Similarly, I don't believe rugby in the lead needs a capital letter.

I think I've addressed all of them. - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one ^{[citation needed]} tag still to be addressed already.

Done. - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"LMS missionaries"? A link, full name and/or explanation might be nice.

Added. - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All street names to the French original please (there's at least one mention of "Independence Avenue").

I think I got all of them. - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...that intersect at their highest point to form a y shape" => "...to form a "Y" shape".

Edited. - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ville moyenne etc. only need to be explained once in the text. Future uses can just use the French term. Plus, for consistency, after the introduction please use either the French or the English term consistently.

Should be fixed now. - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "architecture" section could do with at least one or two more references ideally

Done. - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please change "%" to the English "percent" which is prescribed by an MOS, I believe. It is already done in some instances anyway.

Done. - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful that French and Malagasy terms are consistently italicized.

I think I've now caught all of these... - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At lease one reference needed in the "Education" section for the non-University level part.

Done. - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Health and sanitation" could use some wikilinks to some of the diseases and things (plague, vehicle exhaust etc.) mentioned.

Added. - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of "Transport and communications" is unreferenced. Ditto the last section of paragraph 3 which could also use links to the companies mentioned.

Fixed. - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Perhaps also consider a list of communes/cantons/administrative districts if they exist. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on several maps for the FA version that should have the names of neighborhoods, the arrondissement layout (they are just numbered, dull but informative, and possibly expansion of the city over time. - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second comments[edit]

Thanks for addressing the issues so promptly, and sorry for the delay on my part. Still a couple of minor things, then I'll be happy to pass it.10:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The acronym CUA should be extrapolated at its first mention in the body of the article, as well as the lead

This was there in the lead and when it's mentioned under the government section, but I've now added it on the first appearance in the body (in the architecture section) as well. I'd like to keep it a second time in the body in the government section since that's where it becomes most important to know what it stands for. - Lemurbaby (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, all place names should be linked at least once. Linking Suzhou but not Montreal implies a knowledge about the reader and their cultural horizons that we just don't have.

Done. I'm one of the most vehement advocates for eliminating bias. This was just an oversight (Nice was linked). - Lemurbaby (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Communications services in Antananarivo are the best in the country. Internet and mobile phone networks are readily available and affordable, although disruptions in service occur periodically." Cite please.

Done. - Lemurbaby (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Jean Laborde and a redlink to the Museum of Art and Archaeology (Antananarivo).

Laborde is linked on the first occurrence (the history section). Redlink for museum added. - Lemurbaby (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, my mistake! —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth bringing all your citations down into the template:Sfn format - just personally, I feel the mix of full links and sfn book links a bit disordered and unnecessary. There is no reason why websites or journalistic articles cannot be treated the same as books and moved to the References section in full?

This wasn't the way I was "taught" to use SFN (no judgment - it's just not the way I know), so all my articles are done in this way (books with SFN, and the rest without it). But I'm open to making changes to my standard approach when it's an improvement. :) What are the benefits of making the switch? I'll adjust how I do things from here on out if I understand that it makes sense to do it, although since this is a preference question let's not hold up the GA for this. I would just adopt the new style for future articles and maybe work retroactively on updating the others once the work of beefing up critical but underdeveloped articles is further along. - Lemurbaby (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not a big deal for GA. Personally, I think it makes it cleaner for the reader - perhaps it's just me, but using sfn for books and citing websites directly implies that the sources are of different value. Why should some references be in "References", and other not? Plus, if the reader wants to know what sources to look at one the topic, going to the "References" section won't really provide the full picture anyway! —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're using AmENG? If so, please put the Template:American English or similar on the talk page.

Done. - Lemurbaby (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lemurbaby? —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry- I didn't have this page on my watch list somehow. Will get started now. - Lemurbaby (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done with these round II edits. - Lemurbaby (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cracking work. I'm delighted to pass this now and I wish you all the best if you want to push it to FAR. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]