Talk:Mikea people/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 15:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll review the article within 7 days. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rosiestep! - 01:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * per se vs. per se - I'm used to seeing it italicized
 * done


 * wl tenrecs
 * done


 * Masikoro - I understand avoiding redlinks, but it seems like an article waiting to be started
 * done


 * "Although the Mikea of today" - How about, ''Although present-day Mikea..."
 * Changed


 * "Their adherence to a way of life perceived by villagers and city dwellers as ancestral has contributed to a mystique and various myths and legends about them." - a bit clunky using the word "and" 3 times


 * Ethnic identity
 * "The Mikea are hunter-gatherers (also called foragers) who also ..." - The 2 "alsos" so close together seems clunky
 * removed second instance


 * "Historically this main concentration of Mikea may have extended as far south as the Fiherenana River and as far north as the Mangoky River." Please add an inline citation for this.
 * Citation followed the next sentence, source for both - so I've joined the sentences to help clarify this.


 * Culture
 * "The Mikea are culturally and linguistically nearly identical to the neighboring Vezo fishing clan and Masikoro herding and farming clan of the Sakalava and only the traditional source of livelihood distinguishes the three groups." Can you reword to avoid repeating "and" 3 times?
 * done

I've completed my review. The article is in great shape, so very few improvement suggestions, but I'll put it on hold nonetheless. Please ping me when you're ready for me to give it another read through. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy review, ! I've made the requested changes. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Good job. Looks adequate for GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: