Talk:Haitian Vodou/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 04:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at this article for a while with an eye to reviewing it. I can't guarantee the most prompt review -- it's a long article (over 500 individual references!) and I'm finishing up another GAN at the moment -- but I didn't want to see it sit too much longer. It's excellent, fascinating work.

A couple of comments on the lead, pending a more comprehensive combthrough later:

Is there a reason to include IPA for variant spellings in the footnote, but not for the primary spelling in flowing text?

There's no reason for it's omission, I can add the IPA in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image is very detailed, but displayed at default size -- using the upright= parameter might help with seeing/understanding/accessibility.

I looked at changing default image size for "upright=200px" and then "upright=300px" but it does not seem to make any difference from the standard default size, at least in my browser, so I've left it as the former. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The upright parameter takes a scaling factor (like 1.2 or 1.35), rather than a an absolute size in px. The upright parameter is recommended as it gels well with accessibly software. Absolute sizes don't. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The oungan and manbo links are piped to variant spellings, but both articles seem to be titled at the same spellings used here.

Well spotted; I've corrected this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet 04:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this review on, Vaticidalprophet. No rush in getting it finished. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not reviewing this nomination, however I did give it a brief read, the only issue I see as far as I can tell is one of your references (Author: Cosentino), is not cited in the article making an error page pop up next to the bibiography portion.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC) @Vaticidalprophet: Hoping that things are well with you. Did you have any further comments about this article at the present time? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Argh -- sorry for not getting back to you. I've been very occupied offwiki for a few weeks, just when I was going to start looking seriously at this. It might be better to put this back in the queue, but I might be able to pick it back up at some point. Vaticidalprophet 20:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: - Apologies for the delay in my response, I've not been active on Wikipedia lately either. If you feel that you cannot finish the review, that's no problem; could you ask for a "second opinion" review, perhaps? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl I would be interested in taking this over; however, it technically does not seem to be a "Second opinion" (which would still require the original reviewer to promote or fail), but rather an "abandoned review" (see WP:GAN/I#N4a)? Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: It would be great if you could take it on. I think you're right about this being more of an "abandoned review" than a "second opinion", so I'll set it up accordingly. Looking forward to your comments, if you get the time! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]