Talk:Savika

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 17:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Zanahary (talk). Self-nominated at 07:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Savika; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • No image and QPQ done. Hook is interesting and inline cited (at the paragraph level in the section "Traditional and legendary explanations") to The International Journal of the History of Sport which is RS. Article is (very much) long enough, NPOV, and new (created March 7). Earwig returns one percent ("Violation Unlikely"). Good job, Zanahary! Chetsford (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are in WP:QPQ backlog mode. Double reviews are required.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The QPQ check tool to the right counts only 15. I don't really trust the QPQ tool that much because it barely counts 40% of my own nominations. But If the nominator feels that they have done less than 20 noms this can go forward or they can do the double. This case is on the honor system.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the backlog mode did not start until 00:00 8 March, and this nomination was made on 7 March, this would not have needed a second QPQ even had the nominator had 20 or more prior nominations, which it didn't. Restoring original tick by Chetsford. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s weird that the tool counts fifteen; this is my seventh. Zanahary (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Savika/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Zanahary (talk · contribs) 09:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 07:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i aim to get through this in the next week or so ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! Thank you so much Zanahary (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

apologies for the delay, i've come down with a cold and have long work hours this week. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you're feeling well! Zanahary (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

  • (not GA criteria, just my feedback) Citations are not needed in the lead, as everything mentioned in the lead should be elaborated on in the body paragraphs (MOS:LEADCITE). ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an unused suggested ref to use on the talk page and a useful source in the "further reading" section - these could be incorporated for better breadth (criteria 3a). ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just received that one (in Further Reading) in the mail! I don't have access to the Talk-suggested one, but I imagine its content is all included in the book. Zanahary (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    fair enough! good to know ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • i removed some unnecessary wikilinks and did a little bit of cleanup, but overall the prose is very good! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Zanahary (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the "other bullfighting traditions in Madagascar" section necessary? i think it might be a bit too WP:COATRACKy for this article; you could probably spin it off into Bullfighting in Madagascar and maybe add a summary-style background section to this one. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about that, but what I wrote is really the entirety of what sources say about "other" forms of bullfighting in Madagascar, and no sources discuss them all together under one umbrella. There’s also a bit of ambiguity about the relationships between the traditions and whether they are separate or just one practice under different ethnic names. Without enough content for a real spin-off, I think the presence in the article as is is ideal. Zanahary (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    that makes sense to me; it's probably the best way to do it for now at least. in that case; perhaps the section could be either added to an initial "background" section, or moved to the end, almost like a "see also" section? up to you :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • not a requirement for GA, but there's a MOS:SANDWICH issue in the "zebu" section - it'd be good to move the images around so there's not text between them. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sources Eynard 2017, Ratsimbazafy 2011, and Combeau-Mari 2011 could really use page numbers to aid with verification - i suggest template:sfn or template:harvnb with ref tags for this. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • regarding criteria 6a, File:Child holding zebu figurine in Madagascar.png doesn't meet WP:NFCC#2, specifically #7 of WP:GETTY, as it's a stock photo and only relevant to one paragraph - it should be removed (which would, incidentally, fix the SANDWICHing mentioned above) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, removing :( It will be mourned bitterly Zanahary (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i know, it's a very cute photo :( ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Savika&oldid=1218265043"