Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Santería/archive1

Santería

 * Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a religion that formed in Cuba, drawing upon both traditional West African religions (primarily those of the Yoruba) with elements of Roman Catholicism. It has since spread to various parts of the Americas and also to Europe. Having previously brought Heathenry (new religious movement) and Rastafari up to FA status, I'm hoping that I've done enough to allow this currently GA-rated article to become an FA too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review+ other comments

 * Length is an issue with this article. It's 10524 words. Personally I think its readability would benefit a lot from reduction around 20% by increased use of summary style. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've taken out a few sentences in the "Demographics" section and will try and trim a few more bits here and there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done some general pruning, so the article now contains less than 10,000 words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Ellegua.jpg Dubious licensing. People often upload photographs as "own work" even if they're not the copyright holder of the underlying work. This is a fairly sophisticated piece of artwork and I think it would need OTRS for me to be convinced it's freely licensed.
 * Fair enough. It's a shame to lose it as I think it definitely helps with the illustration of the article, but you're right that the licensing here is far from water-tight. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Cuba rel94.jpg worst of both worlds, it's too small to actually read and it doesn't inform where Cuba actually is, unless the person already knows where Cuba is. File:CUB orthographic.svg may be better.
 * I've gone with the latter image, as you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Statuo de Elegua en santeria vendejo (Mantilla, Havano).jpg I don't think this image is free either. The main subject in the photo is clearly the figurine so you can't claim de minimis applies and generally photographs of artistic statue-like objects are protected by two copyrights, including the one for the underlying object. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now removed it; hopefully another image of Elegua will emerge in future that can be used here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Other images appear to be freely licensed (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some sections such as "Definitions" and "Olodumare and the oricha" are longer than ideal for readability, especially for mobile viewers, and should be considered for trimming or splitting into subsections. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have split "Olodumare and the oricha" into several sub-sections and will look at doing the same for "Definitions". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have also added a sub-section into the "Definitions" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Image review is a pass. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
This seems to be attracting little attention. If there is not considerable movement towards a consensus to promote by the three week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Vaticidalprophet
This is a great topic and a great article, and I'd hate to see it archived for lack of interest. I don't have my sea legs about FAC yet, so I'm approaching this quite cautiously, but I've read through and have an eye to support. I'll come back to pick some nits. Vaticidalprophet 14:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Beliefs

 * 1) It features 16 prominent deities, some female and others male I'm not sure that these clauses are best combined. "features 16 prominent deities" seems best-paired with the currently-choppy first sentence on polytheism, while the gender of the deities slots in with the later-in-the-paragraph discussion of their characteristics.
 * I've made the change you suggest here, merging the "16 prominent deities" part in with the opening sentence and moving the mention of gender to a later point in that same paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Practitioners believe that some oricha were created before humanity, but that others were originally humans who became oricha through some remarkable quality This is not, I think, a "but" matter. They're combined ideas, rather than contradictory ones. "...were created before humanity, while others were originally humans..."
 * That's much better. Good suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) he is the messenger between humanity and the oricha and most ceremonies start by requesting his permission to continue This feels to me as though it's missing a comma after 'oricha', but may be personal style.
 * I can certainly add a comma in here, that's no problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) The religion maintains that all people have multiple egun accompanying them at all times, and that these can be either benevolent, malevolent, or a mix of both Superfluous 'either'.
 * A fair point. I've taken out "either" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Several academics have described Santería as having a "here-and-now" ethos distinct from that of Christianity, and the social scientist Mercedes C. Sandoval suggested that many Cubans chose Santería over Roman Catholicism or Spiritism because it emphasizes techniques for dealing with pragmatic problems in life There's a set of ideas here that doesn't quite emerge in the article and feels like it wants to emerge. You discuss earlier that Santeria is not an orthodox religion. Here, you stop just short of calling it an orthoprax one. The article doesn't drop the word 'orthoprax', simply heavily hints at it. Do any sources discuss orthodoxy vs orthopraxy in Santeria explicitly?
 * Not in so many words, unfortunately. I think that we could maybe throw in a wikilink to the Orthopraxy article in-text somewhere, but perhaps not use that word itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Practices

 * 1) Santería is a practice-oriented religion; ritual correctness is considered more important than belief Same as for before -- this is almost, but not quite, explicitly saying 'orthopraxy' and comparing the concepts. Orthopraxy is a pretty unfamiliar theological concept to a lot of people in English-speaking regions, and I think it's worth explicitly discussing more what that means, and what makes Santeria different -- even unfamiliar -- through the lens of people working off Christian assumptions.
 * As I don't think any of the sources actually use the term "orthopraxy" (I would have incorporated it if they did) I'm not sure if we can explicitly include the term here, but I've added a wikilink to our article on the topic here, which hopefully does the trick. I'm open to expanding the text here, but not quite sure how to do so, given the constraints imposed by what is in the Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikilink is fine. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Most of its activities revolve around the oricha, although it also displays a focus on solving the problems of everyday life Are these actually distinct ideas in orthoprax religions? "Although" sets them off as counters.
 * I've changed this sentence to the following: "Most of its activities revolve around the oricha and focus on solving the problems of everyday life." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Since at least the 20th century, some initiates have kept libretas, notebooks in which they have written down material relevant to the practice of Santería The article does not make clear the relevance of this sentence. "Some initiates" beginning in relatively recent years, and without later discussion of the concept, doesn't explain why this is encyclopedically relevant.
 * I thought it appropriate to discuss the notebooks (and their connotations of literacy) straight after mentioning the oral component in Santería teaching. I don't have a problem with moving this sentence elsewhere in the article, but I'm not sure where they might go that might be more suitable. Perhaps at the bottom of the "Initiation" sub-section? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a better fit -- it's a bit disjointed where it is. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now moved it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Most Cubans do not understand the Lucumí language, barring a few words that have filtered into Cuban Spanish, the daily language of most practitioners Is the last clause of this sentence necessary? The needed ideas are expressed without it.
 * I've removed "the daily language of most practitioners." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) The casa will typically also include a place to store ritual paraphernalia So...this article uses the term 'paraphernalia' a few times (including in the caption of the image right here). It is, in the abstract, a perfectly respectable word, and likely to be the best one possible. But -- the common association with the term is drug paraphernalia, to the point if you google the word alone you get this. Considering there are already drug-culture associations with Santeria in the popular consciousness, I'm not sure this wording won't attract snickers from peanut-gallery readers.
 * Difficult one. I'm certainly open to using a synonym here, but "equipment", "utensils", and "implements" all also have connotations of other types of activity (indeed, more so than "paraphernalia", at least in my experience). Terms like "stuff" and "things" are just too vague. On the balance of things, I'd say "paraphernalia" is our best option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Altars or shrines to the oricha are typically found both within the igbodu, and in practitioners' homes Not sure this needs a comma.
 * Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) anthropologists have observed practitioners who have included Taoist figurines, or statues of wizards, on their altars As above re. comma.
 * Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) There are specific rules of engagement that are laid out for taking part in the toque de santo; dancing poorly at the ritual is considered an insult to the oricha This is a great line, exactly the kind of thing that catches a reader's attention in a long article. Is there anything more on the bad dancing?
 * In her ethnographic account, Hagedorn discusses how one practitioner she observed began doing the moonwalk. Other participants thought that this individual was basically just trying to show off rather than being genuinely possessed by an oricha, and were disapproving as a result. I don't know if that's the sort of thing that we could add here or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a great line -- I'd definitely add it. Human interest, y'know. Vaticidalprophet 21:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Some practitioners have also reported becoming possessed by an oricha in non-ritual contexts, such as while sleeping or walking through the streets, or in some cases during drumming performances carried out for non-religious purposes "In some cases" seems superfluous.
 * Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

History

 * 1) They largely adhered to what is now known as Yoruba traditional religion -- is this WP:PLEONASM? There may be a better way to discuss the Yoruba religions.
 * I'm not sure about this. Today's Yoruba are largely Christian and Muslim, so it would not be unreasonable for a reader unfamiliar with the chronologies of Abrahamic conversion in West Africa to assume that a lot of the enslaved Yoruba who were taken to Cuba were Christian or Muslim too. Explicitly stating that they were largely adherents of traditional religion just keeps things crystal clear for those readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from, but I think it sounds off how it's currently phrased. "They largely adhered to their traditional religions, rather than the Abrahamic religions they would later convert to" ...that's a quick rephrase and not necessarily a good one, but that's the sort of idea I think it's better pointed at. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 21:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned that introducing Christianity and Islam among the Yoruba here might be a little off-topic; I've had a go at rewriting this sentence, merging it into the subsequent sentence. Do you think that works? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) In the 1920s, there were efforts to incorporate elements of Afro-Cuban culture into a wider understanding of Cuban culture, such as through the afrocubanismo literary and artistic movement Should Afrocubanismo be capitalized?
 * It certainly can be. I'll make that change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Regarded largely as a U.S. phenomenon rather than a Cuban one I'm not sure how relevant it is to this paragraph, then. The rest of the section seems to focus on Santeria as practiced in Cuba, rather than as practiced in the United States.
 * I've deleted this part of the sentence; it is not essential. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) One of the most prominent figures in this revival, Ava Kay Jones, had for instance previously been involved in King's Orisha-Voodoo "For instance" seems either superfluous, or needing to be moved forward in the sentence.
 * I've taken out "for instance" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Demographics

 * 1) However, there are a greater number of people who are not initiates but turn to santeros and santeras for assistance on practical matters Strike "however".
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) This section broadly seems to use older numbers, although I recognize it may be a limitation of what sources exist.
 * Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any more recent data on this subject. After a big rush of scholarly research on Santería coming out in the 2000s, things have died down a bit in the past ten years (academic fads moving on, I suppose) so there's no contemporary discussion of demographic information to draw on. Hopefully some more work will be done on this topic in future, which we can then incorporate into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Reception

 * 1) I think there may be room for expansion here, particularly in the last paragraph, which has a lot of ideas and seems to be compressing them. There's at least one very long sentence trying to deal with multiple different ideas ("the Catholics and the animal welfare activists both opposed" type stuff).
 * The Reliable Sources haven't really dealt much with the broader social impact and reception of Santería, strangely enough. (Whereas the sources on Haitian Vodou tend to dwell on these issues to a greater extent). I'm certainly open to an expansion of this section, although the article is already pretty much at the upper end of its recommended WP:Article Size at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Overall, this is a strong article. I'm hoping these can be resolved so I can support. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 16:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for taking the time to read through this article and offer your thoughts, <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b>. I hope that you enjoyed doing so and found it informative. I believe that I have responded to all of your points but let me know if any more come to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking good -- just made a couple replies. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 21:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Vaticidalprophet. I need to go back and look at the Hagedorn ethnography but I've responded to your other two points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

All significant concerns I have are resolved, and I'm happy to support this outstanding work. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 17:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Support (incl. source review) from A. Parrot
To avoid taking up time and space on the FAC page, I've made a lot of prose edits already. They're numerous but very granular, so it should be easy to check what I did; feel free to undo or rework them if you see fit. The article seems pretty comprehensive, so my questions are few.


 * Creyente seems to be used as both singular and plural in the article body, as per Lucumí, but the lead uses "creyentes". Should that be corrected?
 * Linguistics and languages are not my strong point, but (having done some delving on a search engine) it does seem that the plural should be creyentes in the Spanish language, so I have standardised that spelling throughout the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "…between a few dozen through to hundreds" is awkward.
 * You're right. I've changed this to "tens or hundreds". Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Fernández Olmos & Paravisini-Gebert 2011 has oyugbona instead of oyubona (which is in Mason 2002). Should oyugbona be added as an alternate spelling?
 * I've re-checked Mason, and he definitely uses the spelling oyubona, but I'm happy to add oyugbona too. With a lot of this terminology, different authors seem to favour different spellings. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there a distinction between the necklaces that are laid on the soperas and those (aside from the distinct collar de mazo) that are given to initiates? The text lists three terms for the latter but only one for the former, making it seem like there are two types with somewhat different terminology. Also, it's not clear how many necklaces initiates receive, though the comment about their colors seems to suggest each initiate receives one for each oricha.
 * In all honesty, I'm not completely sure about the distinction between these two different types of necklace; I believe they are effectively the same, but I could be wrong. I am not an initiate of Santería, so my knowledge relies on the secondary sources, none of which go into particular detail regarding these necklaces. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK.


 * If santería is a semi-formalized version of a cluster of longstanding Afro-Cuban beliefs and practices, as the history section indicates, how did it come to be regarded as distinct from the other Afro-Cuban traditions?
 * As I understand it, that varies depending on the tradition in question. Palo, for instance, arises primarily in the east of Cuba and has a system of belief and practice that it very distinct from Santería, largely because it derives from Kongolese, as opposed to Yoruba, traditional religion. Abakuá operates as a sort of closed or secret society, which thus distinguishes it from Santería in an organisational manner. The situation with Arará is a bit more complicated; it is sometimes regarded as being part of Santería, and sometimes as something separate. The article used to mention that, but I removed it when trying to get the word count down. Would you like me to re-add it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the distinctions need to be clarified as much as possible. The fluid nature of these traditions raises the question of how they came to be regarded as separate traditions with distinct names. Also, do the sources say anything about how these traditions came to be concentrated in the geographic regions that they are? A. Parrot (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored mention of the different interpretations of Arará's relationship with Santería. As for the geographical dispersal of these traditions, I can't recall anything specific in the literature; I would imagine that it may have something to do with where certain ethnic/national groups from West Africa congregated on the island, with Kongolese being predominant in the east and Yoruba in the west, but it could be a good deal more complicated than that. There's a chronological dynamic at play here too, with Kongolese predominantly brought to Cuba in the eighteenth century and Yoruba in the nineteenth. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "…Argüelles Mederos and Hodge Limonta…" I think their full names and (if possible) academic field should be supplied.
 * I've added the personal names of these two and described them as "scholars of religion." I'm not sure if that is the specific field they are most closely associated with; I couldn't find a great deal of information on Argüelles Mederos, but Hodge Limonta appears to have a doctorate in social history and now works in a Center for Psychological and Sociological Research. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not acquainted with the scholarship on this topic, but the all sources cited seem as strong as one could ask for, especially given the difficulty of studying religions of this type. Although many of the sources are inaccessible to me, I've spot-checked 15 citations to those I can access, and all check out, which is impressive. Here is my only point of concern:
 * Source review


 * Citation 203b: Some of the wording of this passage is a bit uncomfortably close to the source, but it could be reworded to shorten it and reduce the resemblance: "Many practitioners will also enshrine their family ancestors on the floor under the bathroom sink. The ancestors are thus located below the water pipes, allowing the spirits to transition between the realms via water, their preferred medium for travel."
 * Fair point. I've gone back and reworded this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work, and I'm very close to supporting. A. Parrot (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for reviewing this, A. Parrot. If you had any responses or other queries then please do let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My last point: the further reading section is pretty extensive. That brings up a question about the FA criteria that editors rarely discuss: "thorough" in criterion 1c could be read as meaning "including everything", which is impractical for large topics. In practice, editors treat 1c as if it said "extensive and representative", which means that leaving RSes unused is OK as long as the coverage is neutral and discusses everything it needs to at the appropriate level of detail. But Flores-Peña and Evanchuk 1994 seems like it might answer my question about necklaces. I'm assuming you didn't cite the book because you haven't been able to obtain it. If so, it's not a major problem, but it's worth keeping in mind in case you or some other editor is able to obtain that source—even an FA can be improved. A. Parrot (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right; where I haven't included a source it is because it proved impossible or highly impractical to obtain a copy. That does not mean, however, that I (or someone else) will never be able to access said sources at a later date, and if so, information from them could be utilised in this article. David H. Brown's Santería Enthroned, which has been out of print for nearly twenty years now, but which I believe is set to be reprinted, would be one definitely worth drawing on here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. A. Parrot (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Z1720
Please consider me a non-expert.

Many of my comments below regard the citations. Most of the citations are completely necessary, but a large amount of footnotes in the prose makes the material hard to read. I suggest consulting WP:OVERCITE (specifically WP:REPCITE) which, although is an essay, explains my concerns in better detail and describes why too many footnotes can be distracting to a reader. I have listed places below where I think the refs can be merged or deleted which I hope will be considered. There are other concerns listed, so please read each bullet point.


 * "regarded as subservient to a transcendent creator deity, Olodumare. Olodumare is believed" It's weird when the same word is put twice in a row. Perhaps, "regarded as subservient to Olodumare, a transcendent creator deity. Olodumare is believed"
 * I've made this change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "The three facets of this divinity are understood slightly differently; Olodumare represents the divine essence of all that exists, Olorun is regarded as the creator of all beings, while Olofi dwells in all creation.[50] In taking a triplicate form, this deity displays similarities with the Christian Trinity.[50]" These can possibly be merged.
 * Is this Lizabeth Paravisini-Gebert the same person that is referenced in the Ache section? If so, wikilink in the prose.
 * Oh, I hadn't seen that we had an article on her. Good find. I'll add it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "The casa will typically also include a place" Delete also
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "The casa refers not only to the building where ceremonies take place, but also the community of practitioners who meet there.[155] In this sense, many casa trace a lineage back to the 19th century, with some santeros and santeras capable of listing the practitioners who have been initiated into it.[155]" Perhaps merge
 * "greater importance, sacrifices are often of four-legged animals,[68] including dogs.[220]" Why are dogs given a special mention here?
 * No particular reason. Ideally, I'd have found sources to allow us to list the four-legged animals that were commonly used, but I didn't. I'll remove "including dogs". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "this varies depending on the client,[237] but is often equivalent to a year's wage.[238]" Since both of these citations are to Hagedorn 2001, can they be merged to prevent OVERCITE?
 * In this instance, I agree ,as we are dealing with to parts of the same (short) sentence. In other instances, I am (following Aza24's comments below) more cautious about any such merger. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Each initiation varies in its details,[239] which are often concealed from non-initiates.[240]" Both [239] and [240] reference Mason 61, so 239 can be deleted.
 * Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "During this preparation, a misa espiritual will typically take place to gain the blessings of the ancestral egun,[247] and an ebó de entrada ("opening sacrifice") will be made to the oricha or the egun.[247] " Delete the first [247]
 * Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Ref 265 needs a page number for Fernández Olmos & Paravisini-Gebert 2011.
 * Ah, I've fixed the error that was concealing the page number here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "An animal sacrifice usually follows,[269] involving at least five four-legged animals and 25 birds.[270]" Since these are all cited to Mason, they can probably be merged.
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "The following day is el Día del Medio ("the middle day"),[271] when guests—including the initiate's family and friends—pay homage to them.[272] It includes drumming and a feast.[272]" These references can be merged.
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "This baptism entails washing the drums in omiero and making sacrifices to Osain.[294] It also involves affixing an afoubo, a small leather bag containing items including a parrot feather and glass beads, to the interior of the drum.[294]" first 294 can be deleted.
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Praise songs are sung for the oricha,[305] with specific songs associated with particular deities.[306]" Since both cited to Hagedorn, these can be merged.
 * "Particular focuses of Santería healing include skin complaints, gastrointestinal and respiratory problems, sexually transmitted infections, and issues of female reproduction;[324] some practitioners provide concoctions to induce abortion.[324]" the first 324 can be deleted.
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Practitioners believe that each species of plant has its own aché which holds healing power; medicinal plants are deemed more powerful if harvested from the wild rather than being cultivated, for the latter can lack aché.[132] Adherents often believe that different types of plant have different temperaments and personalities; some are shy or easily frightened and thus need to be approached with the appropriate etiquette.[132]" First 132 can be deleted.
 * "Charms and amulets are also used as a general prophylaxis against illness; one example are ears of corn that are wrapped in purple ribbon and placed behind a doorway.[344] Other rituals are designed to protect against sorcery, as for instance with the scattering of petals of the gálan de día in the house or the placement of okra by the door.[344]" first 344 can be deleted.
 * "During the session, offerings will be given to an overseeing oricha;[355] the diviner will then cast small objects onto a board or table and interpret the way in which they fall.[355]" Delete the first 355
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Obi, also known as biagué, involves the casting of four pieces of a dried coconut shell, with the manner in which they fall being used to answer a question.[358] Any practitioner can utilise this technique,[203] which is also used in Palo.[358]" These can be merged, as they are cited to the same author and successional similar page numbers.
 * "Dealing with the dead" I find this title a little awkward. Perhaps "Death ceremonies", "Death rituals" or something similar?
 * Tricky one. I agree with you that "Dealing with the dead" is a little awkward. However, finding an appropriate alternative is also difficult. The section discusses not only funerary rituals but also various practices designed to facilitate interaction with the spirits of the dead. How about "Funerals and mediumship" as a title for this sub-section? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What about "Funeral rituals and mediumship"? Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This brings me to History, which I will continue later. Thanks for considering my comments. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with most of these citation suggestions. Citing each line for FAs is common—otherwise people come in later and add a "citation needed" tag to a sentence that is cited later in the paragraph. Also things like "These references can be merged." is extremely counter productive... why on earth would we ever want to decrease the ability for readers to verify information? I don't see how any of these has to even do with the FA criteria, it seems nothing but the insistence on (good faith) personal preferences. Aza24 (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've adopted some of Z1720's suggestions, but not others (and would like to thank them for taking the time to read and review the article). Where a specific citation recurs in a single sentence, as happened a few times in the "Initiation" section, I agree with Z1720 that we would be better getting rid of one of the citations. In other examples, such as where there are two consecutive sentences that give different pieces of information but share a common citation, I have agreed with Aza24, that it is better for the citation to recur at the end of each sentence. Otherwise, as they noted, it won't be long before someone comes along and slaps a "citation needed" tag onto the former sentence. In those instances where I have agreed with Z1720, I have left a comment; where I have disagreed I have not written a direct response. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CITETYPE, a inline reference can be placed at the end of a sentence or the end of a paragraph. If other editors add citation needed to sentences then they can be removed if it is cited in the next sentence. There are exceptions to this of course: direct quotes need a citation, as well as controversial statements or extraordinary claims that are likely to be challenged. Per WP:CITEBUNDLE, sometimes citations can be merged or bundled to help the flow and readability of an article. I won't oppose if the citations remain as-is, but I am highlighting this concern so that the nominator can make a decision on if these citations are necessary. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Z1720, thanks for your response. I think we both know I did not say you couldn't put refs at the end of paragraphs, I rather gave a very specific rationale for why not doing is valid option. I will make it clear that the primary reason I even brought this up is because you yourself adding a lot of cn tags to Chinua Achebe for FAR, even though almost all of them were cited later in the paragraphs. I don't say this to try and go "got you!" but merely to highlight that even experienced editors can be mislead by such a citation style, so choosing to make it clearer is in no way a negative thing. Aza24 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to reiterate what I've told Aza24: I won't oppose if references are not bundled, merged, or deleted. I appreciate that you have already considered some of my suggestions, and fully support your disagreement on any of my comments. I consider the nominator to be the "expert" of the article and I usually default to their judgment (and if I disagree, I will try to cite the policy or guideline I am using to justify my comment). I am going to continue reviewing the article now so expect more comments soon. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

More comments:
 * "In Cuba, traditional African deities perhaps continued to be venerated within clubs and fraternal organizations made up of African migrants and their descendants." Do the sources express doubt in where African deities were venerated? If not, delete "perhaps".
 * As far as I understand the sources, there is very little evidence for what the Afro-Cuban clubs and fraternal organizations actually got up to, as they did not generally document their activities in written form. Historians surmise that it was in these groups that orisha continued to be worshipped clandestinely, although this has not been conclusively proven. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Although drawing on older West African orisha cults it was, as described by Clark, "a new religious system"." Awkward phrasing. Perhaps, "Although it drew on older West African cults, Santeria was, as described by Clark, "a new religious system". I'm not thrilled with my suggested phrasing because it uses too many commas, so feel free to improve upon it.
 * I've changed the text to your proposed wording here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Santiago de Cuba—which lies at the eastern end of the country—" Is it important for the reader of this article to know where Santiago de Cuba is? This might be especially unnecessary if, as stated in the demographics section, the religion is predominately practiced in NW Cuba. If this statement isn't needed, delete the info in the dashes.
 * I included it so as to try and demonstrate the general drift of the religion from the west of the island to the east over the course of a century or so. I think that without mentioning the general location of Santiago de Cuba, few readers would be aware of where it is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Priests of Santería, Ifá, and Palo all took part in government-sponsored tours for foreigners desiring initiation into such traditions,[421] while Afro-Cuban floor shows became common in Cuban hotels.[421]" Delete the first [421]?
 * Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "In 1991, the Communist Party approved the admission of religious members,[429] and in 1992 the constitution was amended to declare Cuba a secular rather than an atheist state.[429]" Delete the first [429]?
 * Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Based on their research, the scholars of religion" Delete Based on their research. If the article introduces a scholar's opinion, it is self-evident that this would be based on their research.
 * Good point. Deleted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Wedel noted from his research in the 1990s" delete from his research, as the reader will assume a scholar's statement is based on their research.
 * Agreed and removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Those are all my comments! Once everything is addressed I will take another look. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking a look at the article, Z1720! Hope that you found it interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding to my concerns! I'll highlight some things mentioned above that need to be resolved:


 * "Dealing with the dead" heading can be changed to one of our suggested titles above, or something else.
 * I've gone with "Funerals and mediumship". Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The mention of Santiago de Cuba is included in the article because it is demonstrating the drift of the religion to the eastern part of the island. I did not intuitively comprehend this information (probably because the preceding information talked about the religion's spread to the countryside) so this should be more explicit in the article.
 * I've reworded all of this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There are some places where the same citation is used multiple times in a sentence. I won't withhold my support over these concerns below, but per OVERCITE I highly suggest that, in the examples below, one of the references be deleted unless there is a justification for keeping it. The examples are:
 * " Practitioners believe that the dead must be treated with respect, awe, and kindness;[118] they are consulted at all ceremonies.[118]"
 * Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "Funeral rites, called itulu,[203] are designed to appease the soul of the deceased.[203]"
 * Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "A year of additional rites for the dead individual follow,[203] a period ended with the levantamiento de platos, the breaking of a dish, to symbolise the deceased's final departure from the realm of the living.[203]"
 * Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Another readthrough did not produce other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Z1720! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Jens

 * "cowrie shells" – link?
 * Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Most casa are established" – Should it be "casas"?
 * Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * a person's own obi – What is an obi?
 * Ah, this is a spelling error. It should read "ori", which was introduced earlier in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * a misa espiritual will typically take place – maybe translate this term, difficult to understand from the context what precisely it is.
 * I've added a translation: "(spiritual mass)". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I was asking myself if the drums (batá) are traditional African instruments, or if they have been invented in Cuba.


 * They arose in Africa; I've added a link to Batá drum for those interested in reading more, although do you think it important that we discuss its origins in this article itself? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * protective charms known as resguardos. – I do not quite understand what kind of charm these are. Potions?
 * No, the resguardos are physical objects. Wedel calls them "talismans" rather than "charms", which is probably the better term to use here given that a "charm" can often connotate a verbal device for healing or protection, so I'll replace the term "charms" with "talismans" in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * most slaves were either convicted criminals or prisoners of war captured in conflicts with neighbouring groups – This seems to be valid only before the large-scale slave-trade conducted by Europeans? It sounds as if a majority of slaves brought to Cuba were convicted criminals; I doubt this is the case.
 * This is a big issue and one that obviously needs its own Wikipedia article to be dealt with properly. We really need better coverage of issues to do with the slave trade and its relationship with older European and African systems of enslavement; the current Slavery in Africa article, which is linked to here, does not really do the job in a precise enough fashion. I'd agree that those captured in conflict would have represented the majority of enslaved Africans who were transported to Cuba, but if I understand the sources correctly there would have been some individuals among those transported who had been forced into slavery as a form of punishment. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, as a quick fix, just switch to "prisoners of war or convicted criminals", to put more emphasis on the prisoners? Something like "mostly prisoners of war, and to a lesser extent convicted criminals" would be even better I think. The current wording is a bit misleading in my opinion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * this reached a fever pitch in 1904 after two white children were murdered in Havana in cases that investigators speculated were linked to brujería. – Maybe briefly add what the consequences were?
 * In both cases, male Afro-Cuban suspects were arrested. In one case, the accused individual was sentenced to death but found hanged in his cell prior to the execution; in the other the police arrested two men, who were then garrotted. I'm not really sure how to integrate this into the text without it going a bit off-topic, but am happy to discuss this further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, ok then. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Interesting read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking the time to read the article, Jens. I'm glad that you found it interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I will be away for the next days, so I am supporting now, but note the suggestion in my reply above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jens! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)