Jump to content

Talk:Savika

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 17:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Zanahary (talk). Self-nominated at 07:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Savika; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • No image and QPQ done. Hook is interesting and inline cited (at the paragraph level in the section "Traditional and legendary explanations") to The International Journal of the History of Sport which is RS. Article is (very much) long enough, NPOV, and new (created March 7). Earwig returns one percent ("Violation Unlikely"). Good job, Zanahary! Chetsford (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are in WP:QPQ backlog mode. Double reviews are required.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The QPQ check tool to the right counts only 15. I don't really trust the QPQ tool that much because it barely counts 40% of my own nominations. But If the nominator feels that they have done less than 20 noms this can go forward or they can do the double. This case is on the honor system.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the backlog mode did not start until 00:00 8 March, and this nomination was made on 7 March, this would not have needed a second QPQ even had the nominator had 20 or more prior nominations, which it didn't. Restoring original tick by Chetsford. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s weird that the tool counts fifteen; this is my seventh. Zanahary (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Zanahary (talk · contribs) 09:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Sawyer777 (talk · contribs) 07:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i aim to get through this in the next week or so ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! Thank you so much Zanahary (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

apologies for the delay, i've come down with a cold and have long work hours this week. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you're feeling well! Zanahary (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Status query

[edit]

Sawyer777, Zanahary, what is the status of this review? It's been four weeks since any post was made to this page, though I see that Zanahary has recently made edits to the article itself. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good question - i still have outstanding review comments which Zanahary has not responded to (although it's no skin off my back - i'm in no rush) and was going to ping them. if the page numbers issue is resolved, it will be very easy for me to do some spotchecks and wrap this up soon. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn’t realize that was a request! I have no idea how those work, so I’ll try and figure them out. I do prefer to be able to click on a citation and be able to identify its full record—do you know of a way I can specify page numbers without losing that feature?
Are there other outstanding comments?
Thanks! Zanahary (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no worries! shortened footnotes link back to the full citation, so there is nothing to be concerned about there. other than that, i still stand by my suggestion that the [other bullfighting traditions] section could be either added to an initial "background" section, or moved to the end, almost like a "see also" section, although i wouldn't consider that a requirement for passing GAN. thanks :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if you'd like an example of use of sfns, my article St Melangell's Church uses them extensively - feel free to copy the source formatting if you're not sure how to make it work! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sawyer777, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how to integrate sfns into existing citations. Would it be possible for you to, as a model, set an sfn for the anchor that names the rice-planting season? It's in the first sentence of the article body, and the relevant page in the source is 439.
I ask this without presumption—if you can't help me with this, I'm sure I can figure it out eventually—but it would be so helpful! Thank you very much. Zanahary (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done! although it has caused harv errors (useful script here if you don't have it) since there is only one sfn, but that is fixable by replacing all of the other instances of that citation with sfns like this: {{sfn|Eynard|2017|p=(page number)}}. that will point them all to the cite template in the bibliography section. hope that's helpful!! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I just finished adding page numbers to all the Eynard stuff. I'll do it for Ratsimbazafy and Combeau-Mari too. Zanahary (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
awesome! like i said, i'm not in a big rush, as i'm preparing an article for FAC. feel free to ping me again when you're done or if you have any other questions :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sawyer777 All done! Zanahary (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
awesome! i'll do a few spotchecks (probably using google translate) to make sure everything's neat and tidy, and then i think it's good to go :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

final comments

[edit]
  • spot-checked Eynard 2017, looks good
  • spot-checked Combeau-Mari 2011, also looks good
  • checked a few web-sources, also all look good!
  • the quality of the sources is pretty solid, especially considering the under-developed media ecosystem in Madagascar. glad to see some academic coverage of this topic.
  • i stand by my suggestion above for reorganizing the "other bullfighting traditions" section, but it's definitely not a dealbreaker for me.

overall, pass. good work & thanks for sticking through this review! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Savika&oldid=1251172626"