Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Malagasy cuisine/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011 [1].

Malagasy cuisine[edit]

Malagasy cuisine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cuisine of Madagascar represents a unique blend of influences from East Africa, India, East Asia, France and elsewhere, reflecting the island's role as a crossroads of the Indian Ocean. However, the vast diversity of local ecosystems, high rates of plant and animal endemism, and the original settlement of the island by Austronesian seafarers rather than migrants from the African mainland have produced a culinary tradition that is uniquely Malagasy. I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria and its elevation to FA would increase high-quality coverage of African topics on Wikipedia. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Should use "pp." and endashes for page ranges
  • All book citations need page numbers
  • There are several cookbooks cited near the end where I did not include page numbers because the "evidence" is contained in the cookbooks in their entirety - how should I proceed? Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In certain cases that type of citation is acceptable. However, I'm unsure why you would be citing something like "Several foreign dishes have been widely popularized in Madagascar and are commonly prepared at home and in restaurants" to an entire cookbook. Is there not a secondary source that says this? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 9: publisher appears to be mongabay, not wildmadagascar. wildmadagascar.org is the work in this case
  • Reading this page, it appears both sites are owned and operated by the same person. It's unclear to me why the url would read "mongabay" when the site states "wildmadagascar" - would this be a question of both sites being run from the same server? This is a little confusing - if there is a precedent or established policy for determining which site should be cited (the page we see on the screen, or the url above) that you could direct me to for future reference, I would greatly appreciate it. As it stands, I'm hesitating to make the requested change. Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In either case, wildmadagascar is the work. The publisher, as listed in the copyright notice at the bottom of the page, is mongabay. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations for books
  • I have revised the citations so locations are consistently provided. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in which type of citation template you use (citation or the cite family); mixing them causes formatting inconsistencies
  • Done. However, I need to be able to reference chapters in edited books and it appears there is no template for that. The closest I've found is using the cite encyclopedia template. It's not perfect, but I made the switch - what do you think? Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Could you not just use citebook for those cases? It includes a parameter for both editor and chapter. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is great - I'm learning quite a lot through this process. Cite Encyclopedia refs have now been changed to Cite Book (with chapters). Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for consistency on formatting details, like whether "p." is followed by a space or not, doubled periods, etc
  • Retrieval dates for online copies of print-based sources are not required, but if you're going to include them you must do so for all such sources
  • When using titles for shortened citations, they must be italicized
  • I'm not familiar with what you mean by titles for shortened citations. Could you indicate an example please? Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Savoir Cuisiner (2004), p. 7" - "Savoir Cuisiner" is the title (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, Cuisine de Madagascar is the title; Savoir Cuisiner is the name of the cookbook series and the closest to an author we have. I made the requested changes - please let me know if the above clarification necessitates further changes. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 49: why title here instead of author?
  • There is no author name given for this book. Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why do you later give the author as Chan Tat Chuen? (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah - my apologies, it was a display problem. I was looking at an earlier version referencing different books in the notes section (same cause for confusion regarding note 63 below). Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check formatting consistency for multi-author works
  • What is INALCO-CFI/OIPP? CABI? Spell out or link (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 63: this book isn't in References
  • I see it displaying on my computer (PC running Firefox). Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You see it in References? Are you sure? I have the same setup, I don't know why it would be different. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 73: what year?
  • I had the year in the citation template coding, but it wasn't displaying for some reason so I added it to the reference manually. I'm not sure if the change I made conforms to Wikipedia formatting for newspaper citations. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 77, 81: References lists only one author for this work - which is correct?
  • A typo was preventing the second author's name from displaying - good catch. Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 86: publisher?
  • It's the personal website of a Malagasy cook. I just added the URL... let me know if this needs to change. Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN for Boissard? Also, where is Antananarivo?
  • There doesn't appear to be an ISBN for Boissard. I've checked the covers of my own copy of the book and on Google books as well - nothing comes up. Antananarivo is the capital of Madagascar; I have added it to the references to avoid confusion. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check formatting on Kent
  • Could we make the large Cuisine navbox collapsed by default? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to do this. Could you point me in the right direction? Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it's been fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your detailed review and comments. I have done my best to respond to all your points above and look forward to your feedback. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • "Lemon and mango sauces (achards) traditionally accompany meals in the northwestern coastal regions of Madagascar." - source? Captions should meet the same standards for prose and verifiability as article text. Also, while I haven't checked the article text in detail at this point, I would suggest it be copy-edited a bit more
  • References were contained in text but I went ahead and added them for relevant images as needed. I will put out a request for a copy editor (something I've never done before - bear with me as I figure this out). Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy edit has now been completed by a member of the guild of copy editors. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Madagascar have freedom of panorama?
  • File:Rhum_arrangé_Madagascar.jpg - what is the copyright status of the sculptures visible in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will look into these two copyright questions and experiment with the book chapter formatting tomorrow. Thank you again for your hard work. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Title 3, Article 48 of the Copyright law of Madagascar that I found, it seems Madagascar does have something akin to Freedom of Panorama, without calling it by that name. Here is the translation of the section:
"Notwithstanding Title II, Chapter II concerning inheritance rights, it is allowed, without the author's permission and without paying remuneration, to publicly reproduce, broadcast or televise an image of an architectural work, artwork, photography and applied arts located permanently in a place open to the public except when the original work is the primary subject of the new one, under the condition that the new work be used for non-commercial purposes."
In this case, it seems the photos in this article that include buildings, advertising or the wooden sculptures may be utilized on Wikipedia because they are not the primary focus of the images, are in places accessible to the public, and are being used for non-commercial purposes. Does this interpretation strike you as correct? Lemurbaby (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buildings are fine. Those sculptures, though, are likely not "permanently" displayed there, and so are likely not covered by this rule. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I will crop the image to remove the sculptures and upload it tonight. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cropped image has been uploaded to eliminate potential copyright issues. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have responded to all the points raised above and hopefully did not overlook anything. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After checking against the formatting of other FAC reviews, I think this is closer to how it should be. There hasn't been any action on this article for a while from reviewers - does anyone support or oppose it moving forward? Thank you for your feedback. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Comments: I am in the process of reviewing this fine article. Sorry for the delays. So far, I've made it through the lead, and it looks excellent. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I noticed that you referenced the BBC special for the statement: "Early Malagasy communities ate the meat and eggs of Aepyornis maximus, the world's largest bird..." I've watched the series, and I remember Attenborough pointing out that it was very rare to find bones with cut marks, and he comes to the conclusion that they probably weren't hunted. Instead, he supports the idea that the Malagasy stole their eggs, but also mentioned shrinking habitat. I tried searching Google Scholar, and didn't find a good source for this. Most of what I found talked about the timing of the extinction. But given your source, I would suggest changing it to read: "...may have eaten the eggs, and occasionally the meat of..."
  • By the way, I have more pictures from Madagascar if you think you might prefer them. I know one includes pictures of a variety of fish on display in a pirogue. I also have pictures of a rural family cooking... although posing as well. Just email me through Wiki and I'll send you copies. Then you can let me know if you want me to upload them.
  • I keep finding fantastic photos on Flickr too, and there's hardly room for any more images in the article... I'd put a gallery in there, but somebody once gave me feedback that FA-quality articles don't have galleries. Is that true? Lemurbaby (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not... but it also depends on who you talk to and how you set up your gallery. The featured article Ring-tailed lemur had a gallery, which was converted to use {{multiple image}}. The key to using a gallery is to use informative—not decorative—images, but also include informative captions. That brings me to another point... I noticed that in your edits today, you simplified captions on a lot of your images. Many of the captions were not only told what was in the picture, but offered tantalizing facts that drew people in. Now they read, "Koba vendors" or "Zebu herder removing raketa thorns". Was there a reason for this change? Granted, Wikipedia:MOS#Captions doesn't help me out on this one. Maybe it's just a personal preference. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cola and orange soft drinks are popular, as is bonbon anglais, a local sweet lemon soda." – Is it worth mentioning the prevalence of Coca-Cola products (non-diet Coke, Sprite, & Fanta) in Madagascar. The source for the statement mentions it, and I think that the impact of the far-reaching Coke market deserves some sort of mention. Maybe in one sentence mention that some soft drinks are made locally, while others, particularly Coca-Cola products (Coke, Sprite, & Fanta), are imported?
  • I think the Coke products might actually be made locally - I'll try to find out for sure. But I think the way I phrased what I just added works as well. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're right... they collect the bottles and send them back, probably for local production. But the key point is that by buying Coca-Cola products, a sizable chunk of the profit goes overseas, whereas buying Bonbon Anglais keeps more money within Madagascar. I'm not trying to soapbox. I just feel its economic impact is noteworthy. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Imports" section is partially redundant. Can the material be worked into other sections instead?
  • I tried playing with it, but it really doesn't work better any other way. Keeping the section intact underscores the way that Madagascar's role as an oceanic hub continues to influence its cuisine today. Most of the dishes listed in the section don't fall under other categories of Malagasy cuisine (i.e. loaka, rice, snack, street food). The redundancy in mentioning sambos and nems again is not such an issue given that the message is different in each instance - the first, identifying these foods as tsakitsaky to be eaten with alcoholic beverages, and the second discussing them as foods imported from elsewhere. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take that back! It does work better to incorporate the material into the historical section. The only food that didn't fit well was the bol renverse so I just took it out. There are plenty more foods that have been introduced (Western grocery stores etc) and it doesn't make sense to list every single one anyway. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And speaking of imports, is there any information about the importing of rice and other food? I know for a fact that they import rice from Pakistan and other locations because they don't produce enough to feed their rapidly growing population, and as fuel prices rise, food prices are rising with it. Granted, this almost makes me wonder if this and other information in the article shouldn't be included in the new (and poorly structured) article, Agriculture of Madagascar. Your thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion about rice importing is important and definitely needs to be on Wikipedia. It's also rather complicated and couldn't be entered into in depth here without seeming like a deviation from the main topic. It should probably appear in both Agriculture of Madagascar and Economy of Madagascar since some sources I've seen state Madagascar would have more than enough rice to feed its people if it would stop exporting, but it does so in order to obtain foreign exchange currency for the international market. I'll look into this further. But for this article, perhaps just a half-sentence mentioning that some rice is imported (with a link to the larger discussion elsewhere) would work best. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're probably right. I hope you plan to develop those articles as well. I'm looking forward to reading them if you do. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at your code and references, and I must admit that if I wanted to add new information to the article, I wouldn't know how to add the citation because the styles are mixed. In some cases, books are listed only in the "Notes", while others are listed in "References" and given notes in the "Notes" section. The same goes for journals. Also, you have to manually keep track of what page numbers have been used in your notes so that you know whether or not you need to use a named or unnamed ref tag. Do you want me to help standardize this? We could use list-defined references and {{Sfn}} like I showed you on some of your other GAs. If you want me to do this, just let me know whether you want me to put only books in the "References" section or both books and journal articles. Personally, I do both, and then reserve the "Notes" section for the web/news references and Sfn notes. Either way, just let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The system I followed was to put all works cited multiple times (i.e. different page numbers) under "References" with the individual citations under "Notes". Any work only cited once for a limited range of page numbers was also listed under "Notes." How is it supposed to be done - are there any standards written anywhere on this in WP? I'm not quite comfortable with list defined references yet, and if I can't edit my own article for fear of screwing up the coding that gets pretty limiting. Let's leave it as is for now... if I ever master LDR I will come back and change it myself. :) Lemurbaby (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I understand, and you're perfectly fine. There is no standard, in terms of coding style, and in fact, you don't even have to use the cite templates if you want to type them up yourself. It was just an offer, so don't worry about it. Your articles keep getting better and better, and I'm very glad to see you put such hard work into the other Malagasy articles. Btw... I did have a question for you up where we were talking about images. However, it's nothing to hold up my support, so I've given this article my thumbs-up. Great job! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, great article! It has definitely improved since it's last FAC run. I'm looking forward to adding my support. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "The presence of these foods at the turn of the 19th century suggests that they may have emerged during this period or even earlier." A logical conclusion, but do you have a cite?
  • "Smoked and dried seafood and meats, fruits, dried maize and cassava, salt and other products were exchanged between regions at designated marketplaces." I had to read this several times to understand what you meant. Could this be simplified/clarified (the list runs on a bit).
  • What do you mean by "the imperial era"? Is this the rule by the Merina monarchs or by the French colonialists?

I've so far reviewed until the bottom of 1800–1896, and made a few minor changes, which you should review (feel free to ask me about any individual changes). I should be able to return and finish within the next few days. Apterygial talk 12:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Malagasy_cuisine/archive1&oldid=1138466274"