Talk:Malagasy cuisine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Drinking Age?

What is the Legal Drinking age in Madagascar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.31.43.117 (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion

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

Reviewer: Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 12:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   ✓ Pass The prose is of high quality. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   ✓ Pass It meets the standards of the MoS. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

    On hold because of the expansion of the article with the history section, the lead needs to be expanded on. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

   ✓ Pass Lead is now appropriate to the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   ✓ Pass Good here

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   ✓ Pass A check of the sources show all sources provided are accurate and of high quality

   C. No original research:

   ✓ Pass None that I can identify

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

    On hold There is one major issue that needs to be addressed and it is significant. See below. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   ✓ Pass The article is sufficiently broad in its coverage and is of excellent quality. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   ✓ Pass The article is focused on the core subject. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   ✓ Pass No issues with neutrality. - Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   ✓ Pass All good here - Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Copyright status of images:

   • ✓ Pass File:Ravimbomanga Madagascar Food.jpg is a CC-BY 3.0 image with no problems

   • ✓ Pass File:Voanjobory Bambara Groundnut Madagascar.jpg is a CC-BY 3.0 image with no problems

   • ✓ Pass File:Kaka pizon (pigeon) Madagascar food.jpg is a CC-BY 3.0 image with no problems

   • ✓ Pass File:Three Horses beer.jpg is a verified Commons image with no issue

   • ✓ Pass File:Kobandravina.jpg is a verified Commons image with no issue

   • ✓ Pass File:Feeding cactus to zebu 001.jpg is a verified Commons image with no issue

   • ✓ Pass File:Zebu Market Ambalavao Madagascar.jpg is a verified Commons image with no issue

   • ✓ Pass File:Sambava - grading vanilla beans.jpg is a verified Commons image with no issue

   • ✓ Pass File:Zafimaniry woman.jpg is a verified Commons image with no issue

   • ✓ Pass File:Ambositra 04.jpg is a verified Commons image with no issue

   All images meet the standards for a good article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   ✓ Pass all provided images are given good, descriptive captions that conveys the context of the image as it relates to the section it is placed.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

1. Before I begin the formal review process I need you to move the references out of the lead. Per the manual of style for leads there really shouldn't be any citations in the lead. Please move them to the body. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

   Requested changes have been made. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

   This is new for me. Thanks for your patient explanations. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

2. I would like to see the citations converted to use the {{cite book}} template. Take a look at Google books as well, much of the public domain stuff is now online - like Madagascar before the conquest. This will allow you to add links to the specific section that you are quoting. I can help you with this if you need. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

   Requested changes have been made. I wasn't able to figure out how to link to different parts of the text within the same document (i.e. different pages of an online book when citing different portions of it at various points in the article). Is that possible? Or should I leave the citations as they are? Lemurbaby (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

   You just need to put a page number in using the |page= field in the cite book template. What I did in my GA articles (Burger King legal issues as an example) was add a notes sub-section in the references field that gave a specific page number in the cited work. This is optional and you do not have to do this, but it can help when you have a source that is used extensively. See the section I added below. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks Jeremy! I will probably come back to that in a couple of months when trying to bump this up to FA status. Let me know if there's anything else you do need me to change before getting this article to GA. - Lemurbaby (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

3. 3b, Major aspects - I am addressing this issue last. The overall article is very good and mostly meets the criteria of GA status. There is one major section that is missing and that is a comprehensive history of the subject. If you look at other GA-class cuisine articles, such as French cuisine and Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies you will see a history section that explains how the cuisine evolved. This is a necessary part of all cuisine articles and you will need to add one to the article. Looking at your sources, you have some very good tools that can provide most if not all of the required information. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   I will try to put that section together tomorrow. Lemurbaby (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

   Take your time, I am not going anywhere. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

   I'll work on it in pieces and will let you know when I feel the draft is complete enough for you to have a look at it. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

   Okay, I think this is ready for your review. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

   Wow, that is allot of work. I will begin tread through it over the Holiday weekend here in the States. I am looking at the citations right now, as you saw earlier. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

   I have read over the work you did and it is very good. I believe it is at a point of passing but for one more thing...

4. Lead - according to the MoS on lead sections an article of 30,000+ characters needs a lead of 3-4 paragraphs. As it stands now the article is at 32,000+ characters w/o spaces, 36,000+ with. So you will need to expand the lead to reflect upon the changes you have made. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

   I revised the lead - What do you think? - Lemurbaby (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

On "notes" sections

If you wish to add a reference to a different section of a work you have cited previously, you can add a references sub group often called "notes". It is done like this:

You add a "group" field in the reference tag to the passage you are citing like this:

For a book use:
text of article.<ref name="Jones 2" group="notes">Jones, p. 129</ref> Next line of text...

For an article, use this format:
text of article.<ref name="Jones 2" group="notes">Jones, ''article name''</ref> Next line of text...

Don't use the same name as the original reference. When I use a previously cited work, I give them a unique number after the original name of the cite. So if the original citation was named Jones I will call the next one Jones 2, Jones 3,... in series.

In the references section you would add the following:

=== Notes ===
{{refbegin}}
<references group=notes/>
{{refend}}

A good example of this citation method is in the Cuisine of the Thirteen Colonies article which is at GA status.

You can add a quote if you like, but it isn't necessary. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

IPA comments

I moved this down here because it is not really a GA issue, but it does add to the quality of the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Why are the pronunciations given in English? Do they all really have English forms? Wouldn't it be more informative to give them in Malagasy? — kwami (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

   I gave them in English because I don't know enough about how it's done to correctly draw from the complete list of international symbols used. According to oral history, when the language was transcribed using the Roman alphabet, a deliberate decision was made to use English consonants and French vowels; there aren't any sounds in Malagasy that are not found in English except the rolled r. I'm not aware of a set of symbols designated for the Malagasy language - if you know of one, would you please provide the link? Thank you. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The vowels e, a, oa are not found in English, nor are tr & dr. Also, the templates you used link to the English pronunciation key.

I know very little of Malagasy, so I'm afraid I can't be of much help. I'll keep an eye open for what I can find. But in the mean time, if a word isn't English, it's not appropriate to transcribe it as if it were, so it may be best to stick to the Malagasy orthography. — kwami (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the form used is fine, but you can do is copy the format used in other articles with foreign names. Using hors d'oeuvre as an example, it is done this way: Hors d'oeuvre /ɔrˈdɜrv/; French: [ɔʁˈdœvʁ] ... How about we do it that way? (assuming there is an equivalent Malagasy key) --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Giving them an English form if they have no English form would be WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. The Malagasy form would be fine, assuming you know a bit of Malagasy. I would be hesitant to give a phonetic transcription of these words without a better understanding of Malagasy phonology--after all, the French approximation of Malagasy is malgache, illustrating that the pronunciation isn't straightforward. I have, however, made some improvements to Malagasy language#Phonology, which needed work anyway (and still does). — kwami (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I do speak Malagasy. I can't quite agree with your earlier comment that the Malagasy e, a, oa, tr and dr are not found in English. People using the English pronunciation key and the transcriptions here will be able to sound out the words. The only way they fall short is Malagasy has a lot of "optional" or nearly totally elided sounds (mainly vowels) that I just dropped entirely in these transcriptions. It's made even more complicated by the fact that the same speaker can pronounce the same word a multitude of ways for no predetermined reason - like I said, "optional" sounds. For example, the word for rice: vary. On its own, it is correctly pronounced var (like car) with a rolled r and an elided, almost inaudible y (ee) at the end. but you might just as soon pronounce the y strongly, and possibly even add another elided vowel after that (uh). When there's a K in the word, some people add a y sound between it and the following vowel, and others don't. The way S is pronounced depends on the individual speaker: some say s, some say sh, and many float back and forth between the two!

Given how complicated this is, and how cluttered the article will get if we add a "Malagasy IPA" transcription after the English one, should we just omit all the material related to pronunciation? Lemurbaby (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As the primary reviewer, I will say leave it in there. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Lemurbaby, if you speak Malagasy, and so aren't just guessing, that makes a big difference. I don't think inventing "English" pronunciations is appropriate. However, we do have a guide to Malagasy pronunciation, so would you mind if I made an attempt at regularizing your transcriptions to fit that? We're getting close to 50 articles with Malagasy transcriptions now, which is usually about the point that we create an IPA key for a language. (Compare {{IPA-haw}}, which links to WP:IPA for Hawaiian.) The IPA key will remain faithful to the language, but also give people English equivalents. That is, IMO we shouldn't have multiple transcriptions for each word, but just the Malagasy, which through the key will be illustrated with English approximations. — kwami (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think creating a Malagasy key a great idea. I noticed that when you transcribed the pronunciation of vazimba you noted "Malagasy:" with a link to the IPA, but when you follow the link, that page doesn't actually include the symbols (or an explanation of the sounds) that show up in your transcription of the word vazimba. If a new page was created, would these words then link to that new key page? I'll be happy to help however I can. We'll still have some issues due to variations in pronunciation, but if we try to keep it to the Highlands dialect (the official form of the language) in its most basic form, the transcriptions will be helpful. I'm not a native speaker but my aunt is, and I may be able to get her or some other friends to record audio for the words, too. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would link to a Malagasy key, just as {{IPA-es}} links to Spanish. The way the other keys work is this: we choose the prestige dialect, or official standard if there is one, which in this case would be Merina, and try to transcribe normal (not extremely formal or casual) speech, indicating allophones that an English speaker would find salient. The nice thing about linking to a central key is that if we later decide to change our conventions, all of the articles are linked together and so can be changed at once, so that there aren't different conventions for different articles.

Is achards a French rather than Malagasy word? That's how I transcribed it.

I've changed to what I hope are the Malagasy pronunciations, and asked User talk:Jagwar to review them. — kwami (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:IPA for Malagasy now set up. — kwami (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quick note on eating lemurs

It might be worth mentioning that the earliest settlers on the island hunted and ate the giant, subfossil lemurs, which are classified as extinct . The article about the subfossil lemurs is FA, so you should be able to easily pull out a source for that piece of information. There should probably also be a mention of the growing bush meat trade in the country. Otherwise, the article looks pretty nice. I'll try my best to join in the review soon. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I made some changes to the article to address this issue. How does it look to you? -- Lemurbaby (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks very good. Only thing left is possibly a mention of the bush meat trade, which is increasing due to several factors, including movement of native people to new regions and economic hardship. Sources for this are available on the Lemur article. However, it may depend on how you define "cuisine". Does that include anything they eat, or just specialty dishes? If the former, then bushmeat needs a mention; if the latter, it does not. I'll try to do a full review soon. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Great job

Congratulations to those who got this made a Featured Article of the day today. It's a fascinating read. —  AjaxSmack  02:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Food & Drink Category: high importance

I've changed this back to high importance because national cuisines strike me as very highly important - more than regional cuisines, possibly more than historic cuisines, certainly more than most individual sub-types of foods (brands of chips, species of apples etc). The categorization system on the Food & Drinks page is very inconsistent right now, with some national cuisines at high importance and others at low, but no evident reason for the ranking. It would be great if this page could spur a re-assessment of current page rankings to bring some kind of consistency into the classifications. Please discuss the idea here before making changes to the ranking of this page. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted the last edit, which dropped the importance down to mid without providing justification here. Not only is this a top-level article as a national cuisine, but it's also a cuisine that has found a market throughout the Indian Ocean region and into Europe. It therefore seems most appropriate to keep the current classification. Please discuss here. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont edit war over importance ratings, and i wont make any further changes here, but i want to point out there is a real reason few national cuisines are rated top importance: not every cuisine is equally influential or important. I have not given American cuisine a top rating (despite its huge influence in terms of fast food/brands/popular foods), and had considered only Indian, Chinese, french, and italian for the top rating for national cuisines (regional cuisines are mostly all top now). Ethiopia didnt appear to be rated top (what is PC-Importance?), and nigeria wasnt, both of which are demonstrably influential. I think we can all agree that Chinese cuisine is of higher importance in terms of this project than malagasy cuisine. The ratings for projects are highly subjective, by necessity, and we cant really cite references for it. I note you just altered your rating from top to high (and have modified my comment here): If malagasy cuisine is a top or high importance, and not mid, then nearly every other national cuisine needs to be given a top or highrating, and the rest mid importance. I think its a good topic to bring up at the project page. And i agree it needs to be discussed, if anyone feels differently. i was being BOLD, and thus am expecting some reversions. PS your advocacy for this article has me curious about the topic, and will take the time to read the article in its entirety (i hope we dont feel we have to read an article in full to rate it!)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mercurywoodrose, and thanks for helping to keep the Food & Drink project active. I agree there needs to be discussion about the importance ratings. To be honest, I don't think ratings matter much to anybody except the people currently or potentially contributing on the project, to potentially help them prioritize what articles to develop first - although it seems to be the case on WP that people develop articles on topics that interest them, regardless of the rating. In short, a simplified ratings system is probably the most helpful given how subjective this all is anyway. I do believe all national cuisines should be at least high level, if leaving that one degree of difference between high and top helps the editors to prioritize (otherwise I'd give all country cuisines top level). There is such a wide range of possible articles in this category, and something like a national cuisine seems very top level to me. That's because the country cuisine would be top, a regional cuisine within the country would probably be high or mid depending on its scope, and a particular dish limited to one region could be mid or low. I do think the English WP is biased toward the Anglophone world (mainly Western countries but South Asia to a lesser extent) whereas the African perspective is practically absent. So for example someone might want to rank Mexican cuisine as top level, but if the editor were French they would be more likely to rate it as mid or low because Mexican restaurants are common in the US but relatively rare in France, where something like Argentinian, Peruvian or Brazilian cuisine is much more well known. Same with African cuisine - an American might be more inclined to give Ethiopian cuisine a high level of importance, but a French editor would think of Algeria or Madagascar... or any of the former colonies, since those cultures are much more visible there. Ditto for Congolese or Rwandan cuisine in Belgium, etc. You see the challenge here? To avoid subjectivity and bias, a simpler and consistent ratings criteria needs to be established, to the extent (in my opinion) that it helps editors prioritize the work. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)