Talk:Andrianjaka

Andrianjaka has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 20, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Africa: Madagascar Mid‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Madagascar portal This article is supported by WikiProject Madagascar (assessed as High-importance).

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 00:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Looking good so far. A few comments:

Is there a reason why you didn't use the infobox? Even without a picture and some specific facts, it might be good to have. (But it is certainly not required for GA.)

There just isn't enough information to add to an infobox right now. If I ever come across some additional references that can expand on what I have, I'll add one.

I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and added an infobox. Having a picture of a hillside in the lead doesn't reflect that this is an article about royalty. Even without a picture and only minimal information, I think it looks fine. Feel free to revert if you disagree. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"An alternate version of the story states that it was Andriantompokoindrindra who was preoccupied with the game, leading to his younger brother's accession to the throne; he was shortly thereafter replaced by Andrianjaka due to public disapproval of Andriantompokoindrindra's brief rule." – This sentence is confusing. If the older brother was late because of the game and his younger brother took the throne as a result, then what is this stuff about the younger brother replacing the older one?
Two different, opposing oral histories. I'll try to make this clearer.

Fitomiandalana is sometimes italicized and sometimes not.

good catch - fixed

~~Maybe I'm too tired to be reading, but this doesn't make sense to me: "(although according to another account, it was the very first structure that was actually Besakana)"~~

I'll rephrase

It says, "Andrianjaka moved his capital from Ambohidrabiby to Ambohimanga upon ascending to the throne in 1610," but the article isn't very clear about when he moved it to Tana, especially since he captured the hill the very same year.

I'll see if there is consensus in the sources about this

~~You have a couple of online refs that should probably be archived.~~

Will do

~~The info for File:Antananarivo Rova-Palast.jpg could use some cleanup on WikiCommons, and it would help to verify the license.~~

I'll have a look at it

Otherwise, things are looking good, assuming there is nothing else known about him. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised and expanded per your suggestions. Very little is known with certainty about these early Merina kings, and this is the most I've been able to glean from the sources at my disposal (online and at the excellent university library nearby), but I'll give it another go-over after I get to DC and have the Library of Congress at my disposal. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good. Let's see what you have to say about the new infobox and layout, and after that I'll pass the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it seems all right... My only issue is I'd like to have an image in that upper right corner, and now that we have the infobox it seems a little odd putting anything other than an image of the ruler there. I've never even seen an artist's interpretation of what he might have looked like, so for the time being we may not have anything to work from. Maybe I should paint one for us. :) -- Lemurbaby (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will look around and see what other articles have done when no photos are available. There might even be a blank placeholder that I think I've seen people use. But in the meantime, I'm going to go ahead and pass this excellent article. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Good work! – VisionHolder « talk » 19:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]