Talk:Malagasy Uprising/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 16:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I'll review this. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Looks pretty good from a cursory glance, I fully expect to be promoting this in due course.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Looks like generally good writing to me, just a few comments:

"against the colonial rule of France" why not just "against French colonial rule"?

• Done

The first sentence might be better as "The Malagasy Uprising (Insurrection malgache) was a Malagasy nationalist rebellion against French colonial rule in Madagascar in 1947 and 1948."

• This is much better - changed.

"French plantations" should this be "French-owned"? (this is both in lead and in body)

• Changed

"to fight World War I on behalf of France" why not "to fight for France in World War I" (the wording we have now could be taken to imply that the French had the Malagasy fight while not doing so themselves!)

• Good catch! Changed

"French colonial authority" should be "French colonial authorities", "French colonial administration" or similar (perhaps even just :::"colonial authorities", since it's clear from context they are French)

• Fixed

"duplicitous people or groups" perhaps "duplicitous individuals or groups" (saying "people or groups" is superfluous)

• Okay - done

"The Malagasy government declared 29 March a national holiday" When? We say 1967 in the next sentence, but why not put it here? Perhaps streamline the two sentences into "The Malagasy government has organized official annual commemorations of the Uprising since 1967, when 29 March was first declared a day of mourning by President Tsiranana."

• Great improvement, changed

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

   A few things stick out here:

I think the lead would be greatly improved if we added a new opening paragraph, maybe just two or three sentences, giving an overall summary of the subject. As it is we jump straight into things and it appears quite an intimidating read just from the opening lines.

• Can you give me a sense of what you have in mind? What do you think should be included in the new opening? I'd like to try to avoid being redundant within the lead if possible.

• Eh, I don't think this is that big of a deal to get fussed over for GA status; we can revisit it at FA. I have just separated the first sentence for now, which I think is a minor improvement, and tweaked the start of the second a little. I hope you don't mind —Cliftonian (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"estimated at over one million." by whom?

• The source doesn't cite how or when that estimate was developed. I will be digging through a long list of other resources to consult (currently hidden under the Bibliography section) and can keep an eye out for more detail on how this number was determined.

• I think this is an issue for FAC, so happy to pass without it; but if you find it before going to FAC do put it in —Cliftonian (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"importing foot soldiers from their other African territories" why not "transferring soldiers from elsewhere in Africa"

• Changed

"second world war" should have capital letters

• Done

French National Assembly is wikilinked more than once in the first section of the body

• Unlinked the later occurrence

You have some hyphens where you should have endashes (1896-1905 should be 1896–1905, for example)

• I think I have this fixed now

Per MOS you shouldn't space emdashes

• The only instances I found of this were in the names of image files, which we wouldn't want to touch. Let me know if you see another place where this is appearing

Antananarivo is wikilinked more than once in the body

• Removed

```` On pg 38 of his book The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon reports the Malagasy dead as 90,000.Tracymacl (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracymacl (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   See no issues here

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   U.S. views are mentioned but there's no mention of Soviets, etc, did any other countries express a view on the Madagascar situation at this time, or specifically about the uprising

• It appears this flew under the radar and only the US reacted - and that info is not coming from a US source, but a French one.

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

1. B. Focused:

   Seems like a good, thorough account of the uprising

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Nothing obviously intrusive so far as I see

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No problems here

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Only one image and the licensing on it looks fine.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   "Monument commemorating the uprising" Where is this? When was it erected? By whom? Say in the caption what significance 29 March 1947 has (just saying it is the start of the uprising is enough). I would try to find more images for the article if possible; perhaps a map or two? These can be good if images are lacking

• There are a couple more fair use photos I'd like to add, hopefully over the weekend. I've reworked the caption for the photo in the lead.

• I'm not sure it is prudent to put so many fair use photos; what they depict can easily be described in words. Fair use photos are generally only usable to illustrate the subject of the article, or to accompany passages where the image itself is being discussed. Nearly there, I'll just hold the review up while we wait to resolve this —Cliftonian (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed the fair use photo of the newspaper cartoon and replaced it with a photo of a nationalist fighter from the southeast. I think this and the other fair use photo are both justifiable - one lets the reader visually identify the three deputies, and the other illustrates the level of wealth and technology of the average fighter (they can imagine how the French were equipped, post WWII). The two also work well off of each other by illustrating the relative difference in "Westernization" and wealth of the political leaders of the nationalist movement in Antananarivo and the average fighters in the rural areas. Wish I could add some great photos of the French military and their Senegalese soldiers but none are fair use so I'll limit it to these two. I scoured the usual French archival sources for fair use pics (photos taken by the French government are generally fair use) but like the article says, most material is still classified. The photos that are out there were taken mainly by journalists, which was probably the case for both of these. - Lemurbaby (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, I think this is satisfactory for GA; but be aware that people may be more stringent about this kind of thing if you take this on to FAC. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passing for GA; I believe this meets the GA standards and am therefore passing it as such. Well done Lemurbaby —Cliftonian (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)