Talk:Radama II

GA Review

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

I'm going to go ahead and claim this review. (In the future, just let me know if you nominate a Madagascar article at GAN, and I'll grab it immediately.) It may take me a few days to get around to the review. I hope that's okay.

Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 02:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex! I'm glad you're the one who will be reviewing this. I also just nominated the Ranavalona I article for GA as well, although I feel it could do with a little more tweaking than this one. Thank you in advance for your helpful feedback. We make a good Madagascar team. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes we do. I enjoy learning about Malagasy culture and history from your articles. I'm just glad you're writing these articles and not me. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Below are the issues to address.

• Images: Once again, we have issues. The most important photo of the king himself lacks author and source info, and TinEye wasn't able to help me locate a source online. Unfortunately, the person who uploaded it has been inactive for nearly a year and a half. We'll need to either track down the source or find a new photo. I noticed you uploaded the other photo, but it lacks an information box, along with source information. I would suggest looking at one of your more recent uploads, copying the info box, and filled it out.

Fixed the main image, but I can't find the source for my own upload so I removed it for now.

• One of your "references" was actually more of a note, so I adjusted the code and added a "Notes" section. However, the information within the note requires a citation.

Done.

• Facts from the infobox, particularly details about his birth, are missing form the article and consequently lack citation.

Fixed

Details about the location of his birth and death are still missing in the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

These details have been added and cited now. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• "abrogate" is an advanced English word, especially for the lead.

I changed it to "revoke".

• "superior state of economic, political and technological development" — It might be best to say that the king perceived the West as being superior in these regards. People can have differing opinions on what is "superior", particularly when it comes to economics and politics.

removed "superior"

• I have a feeling that "Progressive reign" should probably just be "Reign".

Done

• Trial by ordeal of tangena needs to be introduced and/or linked.

Linked

You're doing more for this? Did I understand your statement at the bottom correctly? – VisionHolder « talk » 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd planned to let the link suffice, but upon reflection I've just now gone ahead and added a little more of an explanation about it. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• There's a reference for the blockquote under the "Attempted assassination" section, but there should also be a reference for the sentence preceding it, just for clarity.

Done

The quote should probably use a {{Quote}} template so that the author and source are visible. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a shot -- Lemurbaby (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would remove "[assumed dead]" from the lead due to a lack of concrete evidence. Likewise, I would also rename the section "Attempted assassination" to "Assassination".
• What "credible evidence" is there for his survival? A possible scenario for his survival and people acting on rumors don't strike me as good hard evidence. Also, depending on how widely accepted this is by the academic community, you might have to say who thinks the evidence is credible rather than simply saying there is credible evidence.

I'm hesitating on these two. The evidence is presented in a 900-page book on the topic (which I cited), with extensive interviews, tracing of insurrections and rumors and so forth. The argument is persuasive enough that Ade Ajayi, the respected Africanist, wrote in his History of Africa (a UNESCO publication) that Radama II survived, on the basis of that book. I don't have access to the book here, however, so I can't provide a summary of the evidence right now. But I'll be moving to Washington DC in March to start a job with the foreign service and that will let me put my Library of Congress researcher's card to good use. We could leave the article framed in terms of his survival, and as I move it toward FA I can expand on that section with the LOC materials in DC. What do you think? What I can start with now is rephrasing the credibility claim according to your suggestion.

I guess this depends on how the source displays the information. How do they display his date of death? – VisionHolder « talk » 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources that omit or disregard the survival hypothesis state his date of death as May 12, 1863 (date of the assassination attempt), while those that state he lived can't provide a death date, given that in that scenario he died in anonymity - although they specify that he died at an advanced age. There is essentially disagreement in the sources about this issue, like many other issues relating to 19th century Malagasy history, which makes it complicated. I think the best we can do is present the reality: an attempt on his life was made, and strong evidence suggests he may have survived it. As it's currently written, the article correctly represents the available literature regarding this king. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as long as you have thoroughly checked the literature to make sure there aren't a lot of rebuttals to the claims that he survived. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. From what I've read, it's generally accepted by reputable modern scholars that he lived. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Other than that, the article looks very good. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on the infobox citations, rephrase the credibility claim, and fix the tangena discussion soon. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Good job!

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:

   Pass/Fail:

Another excellent article. Please note that before you submit for FAC, you will want to get that book again and provide as much detail as you can about the reasons why it is assumed that he survived the attack. But in terms of GA, I think this is good enough. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)