Talk:Antankarana

Antankarana has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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.
Review: October 3, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Africa: Madagascar Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Madagascar portal This article is supported by WikiProject Madagascar (assessed as Top-importance).

Ethnic groups Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Good sources for FA

This book has lots of details about a variety of Antankarana subjects. This one describes rituals in detail, as well as the sapphire trade. This one has more info on Islam among the Antankarana, this one goes more into taboos, and this one covers funeral rites. - Lemurbaby (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 04:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stability assessment

Article edit history shows no issues going back several months, upon inspection.
Talk page of article similarly has no outstanding problems.

— Cirt (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Studioportret van een Antankarana vrouw uit het noordoosten van Madagascar in kleermakerszit TMnr 60027431.jpg = Wikimedia Commons, appropriate licensing on image page. Valuable contribution from the Tropenmuseum.
File:Antankarana shelter, Ankarana Reserve.jpg = good licensing on image page at Wikimedia Commons. Consider adding geographic location data with coordinates, but not necessary.
File:Ethnic groups of Madagascar Map.png = nice encyclopedic research, no issues here, appropriate licensing on image page at Wikimedia Commons.
File:Ankarana Reserve tsingy at sunset Madagascar.jpg = good licensing on image page at Wikimedia Commons. Consider adding geographic location data with coordinates, but not necessary.

— Cirt (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Writing quality is good, good enough for GA, certainly, although not quite as good as at Betsimisaraka people. Suggest it could be a bit more clear and concise, throughout. A few places with sentences that could be shorter, broken in twain, and more concise, with less use of commas. But definitely good enough at the moment for GA.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Very good lead section, just some overlong sentences here and there. Good overall structure and layout.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Duly cited throughout with good citation style, very good quality sources used.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Excellent use of in-line citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Appears to rely predominantly on high-quality secondary sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers main aspects of the topic quite well, while also leaving several subsections with opportunity for expansion on the road to potential further quality improvement. Good enough for GA at this time.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes, article is focused on the topic, like I said, above, some shorter subsections could even stand to be expanded a bit more.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article presents material in neutral, matter of fact tone, throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	See above preliminary stability review, passes here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	See above preliminary image review, passes here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See above preliminary image review, passes here.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good Article quality. But with room for improvement in a few areas, which is a good thing. :)