Talk:Rova of Antananarivo/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links: Using the external links checker, it appears that there are several bad links. One is a reference to an article available only with a subscription. In that case, it might be best to cite the article as you would for an off-line newspaper (see {{cite news}}) and link only the title of the newspaper to their website, possibly using {{subscription}} at the end of the ref. Other links may or may not be replaceable. As suggested with your current FAC, I suggest archiving URLs that don't require logins using something like WebCite... especially since your sources are overseas and in countries with less-than-reliable internet access. Also, try to avoid using URLs containing search queries, if possible. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... forgot to mention that the citation templates usually have "archiveurl=" and "archivedate=" parameter for specifying the archive information. See my article Thomcord (grape) for an example that uses WebCite archiving on all of it's web refs. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed or removed the bad links, inserted links to newspaper names or wikified the newspaper refs where possible, and removed URLS containing search queries. I'll start moving the links into WebCite now. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Lemurbaby (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
~~The lead is a little short for an article this size. You might insert a paragraph to quickly summarize the buildings.~~

Doing this now. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Lemurbaby (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
You will need to back up some of these citations (excluding Google Books) with WebCite. Also, I'm fine with the sources, but others may questions the reliability of a few of them. It might be good to get a second opinion.

Noted. I hope anyone else who reads this discussion will chime in if they find the sources inadequate. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Captions are all good except for the first one. I don't care for captions that say "this photo/image..." Talk about what's in the photo, not the photo itself. Otherwise, the images should be moved to Commons and their summary information standardized. I suspect the licensing is fine, but that would probably require a second opinion.

I changed the caption for the first photo and will try to figure out how to move these to Commons - something I've never done before. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I apologize, but I will be going out of town from Sunday until Wednesday for a funeral. I will try to check in and finish up the review as soon as I can. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made all the fixes you indicated except moving the photos to Commons. I will try to finish that tomorrow. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried moving one of the Gallica images to Commons. I'd like to wait a few days to make sure the upload won't be deleted due to any mistakes I may have made, particularly regarding the copyright/attribution tags. If the image is not deleted from Commons, I will transfer the rest of them here and delete these original versions. That should complete the work you've requested on this article. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all the images have been successfully transferred to the Commons. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there! Just three little issues, and you should be good. The first is just a suggestion. The second and third need to be fixed to merit GA status.

I just noticed there's a template that might be useful for this article: {{Infobox building}} Although you certainly can't fill in every field, and the Rova is technically a compound, it still might be useful to have at the start of the article so that you can summarize some of the facts. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that this is not required for GA. It's just a suggestion. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case because of the way that the compound evolved over time, there isn't a meaningful way to fill in any of these fields with the exception of about two or three... given the parameters available, the summary the box would contain would be misleading. But thank you for finding this and suggesting it - I wish we could alter the fields to make it more meaningful for this article. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, if you think you can list quite a few general fields that could be used for compounds, including this one, then I will look into creating a template for it. There is a category for infoboxes like this at Category:Buildings and structures infobox templates, but none seem to fit. But for this GAC, it's not an issue. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rova of Antananarivo under reconstruction 2010.jpg is claimed to come from Facebook and lists an author other than yourself. In order to use this file, you will need to have Alain email you a release for the file (stating explicitly: "I release <file> under CC-BY-SA") and then send it through the OTRS system. If you can get him to email you the release, I'll start the OTRS process and give you specific directions on how to proceed with the email. Otherwise, your images look excellent! There may be some final tweaking to do during a FAC, but I'm not good on those details. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to get the image cleared with the permission that the image's creator had sent me earlier, but it wasn't explicit enough since it didn't mention the file name or license type. I have just sent him an email with this information - waiting for his response now. If he doesn't agree to send another email we'll just have to remove it. Fingers crossed. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not hold the nomination up on this image. If you want, you can always comment it out (using ), and then either restore it when you get permission and have it logged with OTRS or delete if it looks like you'll never get it properly documented. In the latter case, don't forgot to flag the image for deletion on Commons. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've never done that before but will give it a try. Please don't hesitate to jump in and fix the code if I screw it up. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that... and for teaching me how to do it. Do you have an opinion on the italicization issue on the talk page below? Once that issue's been settled, I think the article should be ready for GA. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The nowiki tags were meant to show you the comment tags, otherwise they wouldn't be visible in the text. But otherwise, good job. Please be sure to follow up on this. If you can get a proper release through email me, let me know and I'll walk you through the OTRS process. If not, the hidden image will need to be removed from the article and flagged for deletion on Commons. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a .com for currency conversion (ref #31) looks good on the surface, but it effectively means we're promoting their business. If the source does not give a conversion to U.S. currency at the time, it's probably best to take the whole conversion out. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad we have to remove this, but I understand why. Out it comes. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby declare this article to be a good article! In fact, it may merit a run at featured article. Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 18:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]