Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rova of Antananarivo/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011.

Rova of Antananarivo

 * Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Rova of Antananarivo is the palace complex of the kings and queens of Madagascar. It was established in 1610 on a traditional model dating back to the 1400s or earlier. Just prior to the site's anticipated inscription on the World Heritage list it was destroyed by a fire in 1995. It is currently being rebuilt. I'm nominating this article for FAC because it is thoroughly researched and has gone through peer reviews, copy edits and lots of hard work. If awarded, it will become the second FA on Wikipedia related to the culture/history of Madagascar. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment. You need to spend some time revisiting and tidying up the prose. A few examples from the lead:
 * "The number of structures rose to approximately twenty during the late 18th-century reign of King Andrianampoinimerina. By the late twentieth century ...". Which is it to be? Numbers or words for the names of centuries?
 * Fixed the one instance of this issue. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Successive Merina kings continued to utilize the site as their capital until the fall of the monarchy in 1896 ...". A site isn't a capital.
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Within the Rova grounds there were also a cross-shaped wooden house ...".
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "... rumors persist that politically-motivated arson may have been the actual cause of the fire." No hyphen after adverbs.
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also gone through the text again and given it a copy-edit myself. Let me know if you still see problems. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose 02:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC) - I appreciate the work you've put into this article on an under-represented topic, but unfortunately I feel that it doesn't currently meet the FA criteria. Some specific concerns:
 * Issues with prose, as outlined by Malleus above. Copy-editing is needed for clarity, grammar and flow
 * The issues above are minor and fixable (already done) and it has already been copy-edited once. I believe what it needs now is review at your high level, and renominating it later is only going to clog up the FA pipeline even worse. Let's identify issues of concern and I will address them promptly. If something major comes up I will be happy to withdraw it to work on the article further. If you could give me a better sense of the issues related to prose I can address them. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I know this came up in a previous review, but remind me: does Madagascar have freedom of panorama?
 * Yes it does. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Citation formatting needs to be more consistent
 * Can you please provide an example? Citations are all in templates. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I think I understand what you were seeing. I've now moved all books to the Reference section (everything else is still in the Notes section) and cleaned up details like double periods etc. Let me know if this doesn't fix the issue. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
 * That site archives Malagasy newspaper articles. I am quoting from an archived article in L'Express, a major national paper. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You use some very very long paragraphs, which can make reading difficult
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to include two links to Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm going to strike my oppose for now, and will do a complete source review probably tomorrow or the next day. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just completed a review of all sources and everything should be in order for spot check. Thank you for all your hard work on Wikipedia. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is Fage & Oliver 1975 or 1989?
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is Nativel 2005 or 2006?
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Compare formatting of FNs 10 and 64
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Web citations need publishers
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Convenience links to print-based sources (like Google Books) don't need retrieval dates
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Government of France (1900) References entry shouldn't include page numbers
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in how you notate authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In..."). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is the same source that was a little confusing last time. The formatting for the two examples of edited books is actually the same, as far as I can tell, except that one author has four words in his name (Jacob Festus Ade Ajayi) which makes it look like two editors with names formatted First Last rather than Last, First.Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Image comments - i'll leave a detailed image review to the experts, however some comments:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rova_of_Antananarivo_1828.jpg - could use a more detailed source statement, similar to the other 2 maps - what is the shown information "based on ..."?
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * when common English terms for the map legends exist, those should be included. Please check, if the legends can be made easier to understand for the English reader.
 * This is already the case. The Malagasy words are almost all names of buildings. The main exceptions are kianja and vatomasina, and a good English-language equivalent doesn't come to mind. If a good equivalent term occurs to you, please share it here so we can decide whether it can be used as a substitute. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reconstructed_Rova_Antananarivo_Madagascar.jpg - typo "croppe[g]"
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * all images appear to be sufficiently PD (as far as i can see)
 * Cheers! Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * see WP:Galleries for information regarding galleries. Especially the captions for image 1, 4 and 7 need more encyclopedic detail. Please check for all gallery images, why their information is important for the article. GermanJoe (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed gallery and incorporated select photos into body of the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to contribute your thoughts, GermanJoe. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  I was a bit thrown by historically the highest of Antananarivo's many hills, but it eventually became clear. Now the nitpicks  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What variety of English? &mdash; "favourite", but "metres"
 * I believe these are both British English. The person who started the original stub article used British English and dates so I tried to preserve that. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * one dozen &mdash; 12?
 * Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * it would have been inscribed &mdash; was due to be inscribed
 * Fixed. Good word choice. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 *  most well constructed &mdash; Best?
 * I think probably not in this case... This is really about the construction, particularly in terms of material used. "Best" is a bit less descriptive and not necessarily accurate depending on the evaluative criteria considered. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Tambourissa parrifolia), (Weinmannia rutenbergii). &mdash; I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by linking to stubs that don't even contain the species. Either red link the full species name or don't link at all
 * Personally, I found it helpful to be able to click the link and see something about what the plants might look like. Maybe we should ask for a second opinion on this point. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An article was created for one of the two plants and it has now been linked. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You assume that all readers have as good a vocabulary as you. The following are word used without links or explanation parquet, ossification, Creole, deforestation, desecration, archaeological. Cosmology &mdash; this isn't an exhaustive list, just examples. You could go through and see how you could help your readers.
 * Added wikilinks. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Similarly, we are being presented with Malagasy terms which are explained once and then used exclusively thereafter. It makes it difficult to keep track of what words mean. I appreciate that some may have no exact equivalent, but I can see instantly what "tomb house" means, rather than track back to the definition of Trano masina
 * Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 *  Naïve art frescoes &mdash; why cap?
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The French Development Agency also pledged tens of thousands of dollars &mdash; isn't "francs" more appropriate
 * The source stated dollars... I don't think I can go out on a limb and estimate the amount in francs (maybe hundreds of thousands depending on the exchange rate and exact dollar amount, which wasn't provided in the source). Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed three AE to BE, happy with rest, now supporting above  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch - I am leaning towards support and was involved in a very extensive peer review of this article. I agree with Jimfbleak's comments and have a few more I'd like to see addressed before moving to full support.
 * In the lead, this is a complex sentence and I think the "in rosewood" part could be cut, or perhaps moved to the second sentence of the second paragraph, which talks about the buildings themeselves. Merina king Andrianjaka, who ruled Imerina from around 1610 until 1630, is believed to have captured Analamanga from a Vazimba king around 1610 or 1625 and erected the first fortified royal structure there in rosewood. I also note that rosewood is not mentioned in the 1610–1792 section, so the lead (as a summary) should not be the only place for this information.
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead also says by the late 20th century the Rova had only a dozen structures, but File:Map of Rova of Antananarivo Madagascar 1990.jpg shows 11 labeled (not 12)
 * I've replaced the old map with a more detailed one. "Structures" is a vague word... Here I'm referring to the gate and buildings, not the foundations of something never built, but if the term is too imprecise let me know and I'll reword it. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Tighten According to oral history, Manatsara was treasured by Andrianampoinimerina and the house was quite old but still well preserved at the time when Queen Ranavalona I decided to recover its interior walls with wood taken from Sihanaka country in the mid-19th century.[25] to something like ''According to oral history, Manatsara was treasured by Andrianampoinimerina and the house was quite old but still well preserved in the mid-19th century when Queen Ranavalona I decided to recover its interior walls with wood taken from Sihanaka country.[25]
 * Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Missing word? ''According to one source, partial electrification of the Rova may have been successfully tested on Christmas [Day?] 1892.
 * Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is the Malagasy word italicized in "Thousands of the queen's subjects were forced to labor on the building's construction in lieu of paying cash taxes pursuant to a tradition called fanampoana." Almost all other such words are not italicized (though most were in the earlier version I peer reviewed)
 * I believe I've italicized all Malagasy words on the first instance (but did not italicize proper names, such as the names of buildings). Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks more consistent now, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In the two images of the Manjakamiadana, I would mention that the Tranovola is also visible.
 * Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Missing word? The building's fine silk brocaded curtains, chandeliers, cabinets in ebony and gold, and sculptures in alabaster and bronze were remarked [on?] by a European visitor in 1823, as were the colorful fabric wall coverings imported from England.[52]
 * Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I also note that the Reconstruction section gives three different currencies, which make it very difficult to compare costs / amounts. So 20 million US dollars, 700 billion Malagasy Francs, and 6.5 million Euros.
 * Yes, unfortunately that's because the sources provided the amounts in different currencies. There doesn't seem to be an approved way to convert. I had previously provided converted amounts using a website that provides historic exchange rates, but citing the website was considered a form of advertisement. Is there a way around this? Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know some newspapers publish exchange rates, so could the exchange rate be cited to something like that? I have access to the New York Times archives if needed. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Subject-verb agreement The reconstruction of the larger wooden palaces, such as Tranovola and Manampisoa, have not been planned.[38] Reconstruction...has?
 * Good catch. Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is over all very well done, but would like to see these issues addressed before supporting. Thanks for an interesting article, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review, Ruhrfisch. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to support - would still like to see the 11 in map vs 12 structures resolved, and let me know about looking up exchange rates. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed - now states 11 structures instead of 12. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked carefully at the map File:Map of Rova of Antananarivo Madagascar 1990.jpg and one structure, No. 9 "Soamiadanana", is not mentioned by that name anywhere in the article that I can find. Please clarify. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments (points adressed, support see below) by GermanJoe - some more points to work on, though i haven't checked the whole text.
 * Lead - "...historically the highest of Antananarivo's many hills" ==> Replace "historically" with some approx. date to avoid confusion, i understood the context only after reading half of the article.
 * How about "formerly"? Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "rosewood" - agree, too detailed for lead
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Lois Gros" - as there is no sub-article, please add a brief description in lead (f.e. "Creole merchant ") similar to other architects.
 * Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "and transformed architecture in the area" ==> vague statement, which aspect(s) of architecture  exactly? Maybe provide at least one important example here. The reader shouldn't need to go to the sub-article.
 * Clarified. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "and a number of named wooden houses[,] built in the traditional style reserved for the andriana (noble class) in Imerina" ==> comma? The style is reserved for nobles, i assume.
 * Only the houses are built in the strictly traditional style. Placing a comma there implies all the structures are built in the traditional style. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Background - The second paragraph describes rovas with "needed" features. By whose definition - historians or the population itself? Is the distinction between rova and non-rova really so strict and clear-cut? If there are exceptions or controversial cases, it would probably be safer to say "usually include ..." or something similar.
 * Reworded. If this is still unclear, let me know. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1792-1810 - "... for the hand-shaped silver piastre sculptures" ==> "piastre" links to a currency article, so i have no idea what the article wants to say here. What's a piastre sculpture? Is a building with silver sculptures really "modest" (maybe for kings)?
 * Reworded. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1810-1896 - "The design of Radama's tomb likewise reflects the hybrid style[32] that was to influence and inspire not only the majority of the buildings constructed at the Rova in the 19th century, but ultimately architecture throughout the entire highland region of Madagascar." Vague, could 1-2 specific examples be included? (similar problem as in lead).
 * Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "He also had a house called Kelisoa ("Petite Beauty") built to house his concubines." ==> rephrase to avoid houses "He also built Kelisoa ("Petite Beauty"), a house for his concubines." (he didn't build it himself obviously, but the phrase is quite common).
 * Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "On her orders, the boundaries ..." - "On her orders" is self-evident, can be trimmed.
 * Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Later queens also [left their mark] on the Rova through major construction projects." - "also changed the Rova's layout through ...". Also 4 "construct" following after each other, needs variation.
 * Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 1896-present "... the following year. In 1897 ..." ==> trim "the following year, and ...". Both parts happen in 1897.
 * Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Destruction (see source): "Various public accusations of a cover-up placed the blame for the fire on government officials, social groups from outside the capital, foreign powers and so on." ==> The phrasing is relative close to the source text. It's only 1 sentence and a simple listing, but you would probably be better off to formally quote this directly from the source text.
 * Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaning support as well, but prose needs some polishing. Consider rereading the whole text, the article should be accessible for readers without specific Malagasy or architecture/history knowledge. As mentioned, check if the handling of Malagasy terms can be improved. GermanJoe (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Destruction (POV?) - Covering of the "official" position and the (as far as i understood) unproven "rumors" seems a bit unbalanced. The article has 1 sentence broadly covering the official side and 4 sentences describing speculations. Are those rumors and speculations based on factual evidence? ==> Suggest trimming the rumor part to 1-2 sentences with only the basic facts.
 * Made some changes - how does it look now? Lemurbaby (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments, GermanJoe. I appreciate the time you took to review this article. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 Comments : Just to note, I reviewed this article when it was a GAN. It has definitely improved further. Below are my comments.
 * The article does not appear to have standardized on either U.S. or U.K. English. The units through the convert template are in U.K. English (which can be adjusted with a parameter), the article uses "colonize" (U.S.) instead of "colonise" (U.K.), and it uses "colourful" (U.K.) instead of "colorful" (U.S.).  There's probably a lot more, but I'm not the best at knowing all the differences.  Please pick one and go with it for the entire article.
 * I'm not sure if there's a requirement for this, but I think it might be wise to use a non-breaking space between the ruler names and their number. Maybe other reviewers can share their opinion.
 * Added (except where the name is wikilinked... I wasn't sure if that would screw up the link). Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tip—If you want to do those, do something like this:  –  VisionHolder  « talk » 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Various public accusations of a cover-up placed the blame for the fire on government officials, various ethnic and social groups, foreign powers and so on." To me, "...and so on" does not sound very encyclopedic.
 * Removed. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Does "Palace of Andafiavaratra" deserve a red link?
 * I don't know... I don't have any plans to write that article anytime soon. :) But if I ever did, I'd come back and put the link in. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether you will write it, but a question of whether the topic is noteworthy and merits being written about. –  VisionHolder « talk » 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In theory I agree, although when it's such a highly specialized topic that it's highly unlikely anyone else is going to write about it, it's likely to stay a red link for a very long time. Is that a problem? I'll go ahead and link it, and will probably do at least a short stub article on it sometime soon to get it going. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Red links are not the end of the world. In theory, it encourages new potential editors.  There are several red links in some of the developed lemur articles that have been like that for more than a year and are unlikely to change any time soon. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Other than that, it all looks good.... particularly if Nikkimaria is happy with the sources. Excellent job! –  VisionHolder « talk » 15:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will review the article tomorrow to ensure British English is used throughout. I am also about to upload a new map for the 1896-1995 Rova layout and will correct the number of structures on that basis. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Switch to British English throughout is complete. I ran it through a British English spellchecker. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Support: The most important changes have been made (with one minor lingering comment), and I feel the article meets FA requirements. Good job! –  VisionHolder « talk » 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Support after a complete read-through and a check of the images and the English online sources, minor remaining point:
 * I am still a bit concerned about the "destruction" section. The source describes the initial accusations as mostly caused by the immediate shock of the population after the fire, this "panic" reaction seems to have calmed down after a few days. I believe, you should try to give the official side a bit more weight and put the public reaction into a better context (which accusations are fringe panic reactions and could be skipped completely, which accusations are still believed today and deemed possible by a significant part of the population and are note-worthy?). The "and so on" part should be removed (the source doesn't specify more theories, so a vague hint on others doesn't add factual information). GermanJoe (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I reworded some more. I agree it would be preferable to have more information to offer about the official version of events, but to my knowledge nothing more is available. I've never seen an official explanation of how the fire started in any French, English or Malagasy source report. I would think if there were more information available it would have been published somewhere. Instead what inundates the sources is how quickly the investigation concluded, how it was simply declared an accident without further inquiry, and the practically universal belief that an arson was covered up. So in that regard, this section does accurately reflect the availability of information in the sources. Most books and academic journals either state it was an arson or refer to the common belief that arson was the cause of the fire. They almost never refer to it as an accident except when stating that this was the officially announced cause. I've added a line about how the belief in arson persists and is widespread and offered several sources that speak to popular opinion as well as a recent source characterizing it as arson (illustrative of several others). It's hard to get the facts, especially if a government cover-up really is involved. What are your thoughts? Lemurbaby (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When this is all information available, no worries. I think, your tweaks improved the description in it's context. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.