I'm not convinced that the website hosting the Razafimahazo source is reliable. My French is rusty, but I can't find anything like an editorial policy. However, I suspect this is actually excerpted from previously published material elsewhere, and so the original source may still be a reliable one.
Correct - it was an article in Revue de l'Ocean Indien, a print magazine. The original article isn't available on the ROI website, and its reprinting on the "host site" doesn't provide the date or issue number for the original publication. I've googled the article as well and haven't found any further information to flesh out this reference. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make me extremely confident in the quality of the source. Let me see if I have any better luck scaring this up. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I've come up with nothing. I don't have access to any institution that archives Revue de l'Ocean Indien, and can't even try to request copies without even a year, much less an issue number or date. I don't have any particular reason to doubt that this article originally appeared in that publication, somewhere, but what we've got online is a tough sell as a reliable source. There's been quite a bit written about the Vazimba; is there another source with better provenance to cite the same claims? Other than this one reference, the article is looking pretty good in my eyes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I replaced it with a book that is a much more academic and reliable (and exhaustive) source. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Raharijaona has a typo in the spelling of the second author's name. Also, it took me a little while, but I was able to track down the origin of this paper. I was concerned that it might not be a reliable source, but it did actually appear in a 1931 journal publication (information here), and should ideally probably be cited that way. As an aside, yikes, over 40 citations to this one journal paper? Is there no good way to avoid leaning this hard on a single voice?
Thanks for catching the typo. I've fixed it, and changed the reference from web to journal and added the information at the link you provided. I agree it looks strange to have so many citations of the one reference, but the reality is, it's the most detailed source of information available to me. I've used other sources wherever possible, but often this was the only source for the information it has. It's also this heavy because of the way I put the reference immediately after the information it includes, rather than clustering them at the end of sentences. There are times when for reasons of readability and logical flow I've used this source multiple times in the same sentence because there are pieces of information pulled from other sources and inserted into the sentence in a way that breaks up the info pulled from this one. That means it looks like I'm pulling a lot more from this source than it would seem if I just clustered all references at the end of a sentence. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much nicer! No actionable objection to how much it's used, really. I know there's not exactly a surfeit of sources in this topic area to choose from. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because of different expectations between different templates, but your periodical titles have inconsistent italicization. Compare the Razafimahazo and Campbell sources with the Randrianirina, Ravalitera, and Razafison ones.
I use the cite journal template for academic journals, and the cite news for newspapers, but it seems I should have also been using it for magazines, which is what the latter three are. I've adjusted the templates now, so only journal names are italicized - not magazine or newspaper names. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Magazine and newspaper titles should still be italicized. It looks like you've got them in the publisher parameter right now. Putting them in the work parameter will get you the format you're looking for. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks! I'm learning something here. All magazine/newspaper names should be fixed now. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Frémigacci (in Chrétien) and Ranaivoson references lack their ISBN numbers (978-2865379040 and 978-2842801014, respectively). Unless I'm mistaken, the Chrétien book's full title is Histoire d'Afrique: Les enjeux de mémoire, and it also credits Jean-Louis Triaud as a second editor. Also, the Frémigacci (in Chrétien) reference gives the publisher's name in French (Éditions Karthala) while it appears in English (Karthala Editions) for all the other books by the same publisher. - Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've made all the corrections now. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, Squeamish, and your attention to detail! The article is hopefully looking better already, although I'm not certain I got the right kind of dash... it looks strange, somehow. Let me know. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to step outside my reference formatting box here. Article structure seems pretty good overall, and I have no doubts that this represents a thorough review of the available material. I have found a handful of additional spots that may need tweaking:
Oh, hey, I missed a horizontal line problem. In history, "200 BCE—300 CE". That's an emdash, and should be an endash. Pesky dashes.
Under the Compounds section, you have the following: "The compound contains a blend of traditional Merina styles and European styles and construction methods." Should this be compounds, plural, since you are talking about the royal compounds here in the general sense?
Link jacaranda in the Conservation and management section? That's likely to be an unfamiliar term to most readers.
Ah - I realize I should have mentioned the jacarandas when talking about the trees planted around the Bevato compound. I've added it there with the link. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - now added in the "other features" subsection of "compounds" Lemurbaby (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate linking. There's a bunch of them:
Antananarivo (linked twice in the lead)
Fixed
Hasina (linked in Fortifications and Bevato compound)
Fixed
Andrianampoinimerina (linked in History and Mahandrihono Palace)
Fixed
Architecture of Madagascar#Merina aristocratic tradition (linked in Compounds [as traditional Merina styles] and Mahandrihono palace [as traditional Malagasy architectural style])
Fixed
Andriana (linked in Layout and Mahandrihono Palace [as aristocracy] and Royal tombs [as nobles])
Fixed
Ranavalona II (linked in History and Royal pavilions)
Fixed
French Madagascar (linked in History [as French colonial administration] and Royal tombs [as French Colonial Authority)
Fixed
Zebu (linked in Mahandrihono compound and Other features but NOT linked at its first appearance in Layout)
! fixed now
Andrianjafy (linked in History and Nanjakana compound)
fixed
Radama I (linked in History and Nanjakana compound)
Fixed
Rasoherina (linked in History and Nanjakana compound)
Fixed
Also, Kabary is linked twice, one in Layout (to Hainteny#Kabary), and once in Bevato compound (to kabary, which redirects to the same target).
Fixed, and removed the explanation on the second instance
They aren't linked, but you re-reference andriana and hasina in the Conservation and management section. I'm not sure how best to approach this, whether you should use the Malagasy terms here or the English terms that defined them in their earlier appearances, but I don't think we need the parenthetical notes again this late in the article.
I've now used "nobles" instead of andriana on the second instance, and kept "hasina" without the explanation on the second instance. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really looking forward to supporting this shortly. Solid work on a very important historical and cultural location unfamiliar to most Western readers. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for taking the time to be so thorough. The article is better for it. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
