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.
I'm going to be reviewing this article! I'm a new reviewer, so @It is a wonderful world has kindly offered his mentorship. I'll read through the article and start making some notes, hopefully today, or tomorrow at the latest. :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pineapple Storage Looking forward to working on this! Just two tips that I have noticed new reviewers sometimes struggle with:
It's a good idea to structure your review based on the criteria. Different reviewers do this in different ways. Some use the templates linked in the "GA toolbox" on the right, others just create section headings based on the criteria. I personally think the clearest way to do it is with this (feel free to copy+paste) or a similar structure, but you are free to use if you would like.
It's a good idea to keep track of how you evaluated the criteria as you go along, even if you find no issues. It means others can see you are checking everything, and allows you to keep track of the review better. For example, when evaluating the scope/broadness (criterion 3), you might write "The structure appears to follow the same structure as other GA and FA articles on this topic. I see no major omitted areas".
Hi @IAWW, thank you for these tips! I was actually just about to add TM:GAList2, so I will add the template below. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Great, I look forward to your comments. IAWW (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the review! This is also my first GA nomination. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 17:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pineapple Storage You are reviewing really well. I added a few thoughts below, but you are doing a great job of checking every criteria and engaging well with the content of the article. Feel free to keep pinging me when relevant. IAWW (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I'm relieved to hear it's not going too badly, as I've actually been quite enjoying it (apart from the frustration of there not being as many sources available as we would like, because it's such a small language). Thank you for your feedback below, it's really helpful to hear your thoughts—especially on some of the more nuanced criteria! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @It is a wonderful world! I'm just checking in, as I'm aware I've done quite a bit of editing of the article since I started the review—so much so that my Xtools authorship is now 25.8% (even though I've mainly been copyediting and rearranging, rather than actually writing new content). I've had another look through the GAN instructions and done a quick search in the discussion archives, but I haven't been able to find any advice specifically on the issue of what to do if a reviewer becomes a "significant contributor" to the article during the review. WP:GAN/I#R2 says reviewers can't have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review, which I hadn't, but because I'm so interested in languages and linguistics, I've been able and willing to actually work on improving the article during the review, as opposed to remaining detached and exclusively noting areas in need of improvement on the review page. Do you think there would be consensus for me carrying on the review despite this? Or should I step back and allow someone else to review it now that I'm a significant contributor? Apologies if this is a silly question and/or there's a super obvious answer to this that I've missed, but I just wanted to clarify and make sure I'm okay to proceed. Either way, I think for my next review I will try and choose an article in a topic area I know less about and am less interested in! :) Thank you, and sorry this turned into such a long message! Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
It's a good question. I think in this case it is fine, because I'm also checking the review. >25% is quite a lot though, and you would generally want to request a third opinion particularly on the parts you have been involved in. IAWW (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay thank you for this! Yes, this is what I was thinking; if the review hadn't already had your oversight, I would definitely have looked to get a second/third opinion! Your feedback and guidance have been essential so thank you very much again for generously offering your time. I hope you've found the process/article interesting too! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I think some of the detailed linguistic discussion could be a bit more accessible to a wide audience. Explaining a few technical terms might make for easier reading. Most of the technical terms are already wikilinked, which is great, but a non-specialist reader would likely not want to have to click on every single term they don't understand in order just to understand the sentence; I'm quite experienced with linguistics and have studied languages at degree level, and I found it challenging to keep track of the §Grammar section given how many wikilinks I was having to follow (or add in). It might be an idea to add brief explanations to the most important important technical terms for each topic, especially ones that are repeated several times (eg. marginal in §Consonants, coda in §Syllable structure, headedness and attested in §Word order, etc). Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I've tried to add more definitions for technical terms. Let me know if anything else is too technical or unclear. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 22:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
That's great, I think those have made a difference! Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on WP:MTAU for this article? (Especially if you don't have loads of experience in linguistics!) Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I certainly do not have loads of experience in linguistics, and WP:MTAU is definitely a big and relevant consideration for this article. I originally was going to read through this section an tell you all the ways I was confused, which is often the best approach, but I don't think it is best in this scenario because I think it would take too much explaining to make this understandable to your average layperson. Note the GA criteria says it should be "understandable to an appropriately broad audience", and in this case I think an appropriately broad audience at least for the more technical parts of the article would include people who have at least some experience with linguistics. However, I still think this has some improvements to be made in this regard:
Write one level down. This means the article should be understandable to @Pineapple Storage, who has studied language at a degree level, but not necessarily understandable to me, without me having to follow several links.
Add concrete examples – Nahuatl seems to do this quite well. If you can source some concrete examples, they would really help.
Try to avoid explaining everything in a parenthetical like this: "The language primarily uses postpositions, though at least one preposition (the comitative) is attested (or that we have evidence of such a feature existing), and a locative suffix is attested." It makes the sentences very un-concise and makes them harder to follow. Where the terms are used just once or twice, either cut the technical term(s) completely, or leave them as a link. If the term is used several times, then an explanation is appropriate, which could be done in a parenthetical.
@PharyngealImplosive7 Could you go through the article and especially the "grammar" section with these points in mind, and then Pineapple and I can read through to see whether it is understandable enough? IAWW (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Looks great to me! The clarifications you've put in really help, and as there are plenty of wikilinks I think it should work well for most readers. What do you think @It is a wonderful world? Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes I think it looks much better. I could not understand the first subsection of the Grammar section at all earlier, but I can follow it a lot better now. It is weird that that subsection is the only one with examples though. Are there any other examples available for the other subsections? IAWW (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world: The noun section seems pretty self-explanatory to me, but I could add examples there. I also have added one example of serial verb constructions to the verbs subsection. Let me know if you would prefer any more examples anywhere else, as Kjelsvik (2002) has plenty. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 19:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@PharyngealImplosive7 Do any sources support the opinion that the phonetic inventory is "large"? If not, that specific opinion should be removed IAWW (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, just realized I replied to the wrong comment with this. I meant to reply to the lead discussion. IAWW (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world: An average phonetic inventory is around 20-30 consonants as per WALS (large (34 or more consonants)). Considering that this language has well over 60 different consonants, I think it is safe to assume that it has a large inventory. Not sure if this qualifies as WP:OR, but I think its fine. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is not fine as it is OR IAWW (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Kjelsvik (2002) p. 9 says The Nizaa language has a fairly complex phonology and tonology, so I think it would be reasonable to put in the lead Nizaa has a complex phonology, with over 60 consonant phonemes... or similar, and then back this up with further info and a citation ([1]) in §Phonology and orthography. Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and said that it has a complex system of phonology and cited that in the phonology section. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 03:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Layout — Section headers: for clarity, and consistency with other language articles,[2] it might be good to retitle §Phrases as 'Sample text' or 'Example text'. This would also mean that a 'Phrases' section could be used to discuss eg. idioms, if this aspect of the language is discussed in future sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
I renamed it to 'Sample text'. I got the idea of naming it 'phrases' originally from Taa language#Phrases, but I agree that it doesn't seem quite right. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 00:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Lead section — Summarising body text: I feel like at the moment the lead section doesn't really summarise the rest of the article, as it introduces several different pieces of information that aren't repeated later on. Would there be any way to expand this info into its own section(s) and have more of an overview in the lead? Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes it is looking better. My biggest concern is that most of the second paragraph does not appear to be supported by the body. E.g. "as well as a rich system of tones" and "Nizaa also has a rich system of kinship terminology, with different words being used for different levels of respect". Although some examples exist in the body, these strong statements do not appear to be supported. IAWW (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Additionally, it could do with some expansion. IAWW (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The language was not extensively studied before the 1990s, when Christian missionaries Rolf Theil Endresen and Bjørghild Kjelsvik, began to document the language. This is interesting, and would be good to include in the body (along with a source), but at the moment it's new (and unsourced) information in the lead, so could probably do with a revisit? Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Love the idea of a history section! My only concern is the use of "Christian missionaries", given that Theil Endresen and Kjelsvik don't seem to use the term to describe themselves. For instance, there's a chance that they were just language enthusiasts looking for a way to work with the speaker communities of the languages they were studying, and that Christian mission organisations were the only ones that provided this kind of opportunity in Central Africa/Cameroon at the time, and that as part of this work they were expected to translate the Bible. (Even today, SIL Global—an evangelical Christian organisation, ie. originally a Christian mission—is both the registration authority for ISO 639-3and the publisher of Ethnologue.) Alternatively, it could be that they are/were actually "Christian missionaries", but would object to the use of the term... etc. Do you see where I'm coming from? It might be worth replacing "Christian missionaries" with (eg.) "Norwegian linguists"; you've mentioned their work with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Cameroon so the connection has very much been made, even without using the term "Christian missionaries", which isn't explicitly backed up by the sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pineapple Storage: Yeah, I totally understand. I have changed the wording to reflect that. I also have done some rough machine translations of the French (and used my knowledge of Spanish) to add some information to the article using Endresen (1991). Could you also quickly review if the translations are accurate to ensure the sources are being represented accurately please? – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 03:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Yep that all looks good! All pretty much accurate, as far as I can tell. Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @PharyngealImplosive7, Nice work. "Nizaa has a complex phonetic inventory" is now fine as it is sourced. I don't see where "60 consonant phonemes" (shouldn't it be 65?) and "its grammar is similar to most other Mambiloid languages" are supported in the body. IAWW (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Rolf Theil Endresen at Oslo University was appointed Associate Professor of African Languages (Hausa, Fulfulde) in 1978 and Professor of African Languages in 1994. Around 2000, the position was changed to Professor of General and African Linguistics in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy (currently Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies) of the Historical-Philosophical faculty. Endresen studied varieties of Fulfulde and the Bantoid Nizaa (Cameroon). The study on phonology included, for example, Nizaa, Kafa, and Koorete. He carried out grammatical studies on Fulfulde and Subiya. Endresen supervised nine PhD students, seven of them from Africa, before retiring in 2017.
As neither this summary, nor any of his 'Acknowledgements' sections that I can see, mention any Christian missionary organisations, it looks like he might not be associated with any; meanwhile, I also found this profile of Bjørghild Kjelsvik as an associate professor at NLA University College, which is a Christian (again, specifically Lutheran) college. For me this reinforces the idea that Theil Endresen and Kjelsvik didn't necessarily share the same affiliations, other than Theil Endresen's supervision of Kjelsvik's research at the University of Oslo. Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Just to be clear, I made these tweaks in my capacity as a Wikipedia editor, not as part of the GA review! Feel free to change any of my edits back if you disagree with them/think they're unnecessary/etc.) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world: I've tweaked the lead to say 65 phonemes instead of 60 and have removed the similarity with the Mambiloid languages part. ANny final suggestions or do you think the lead is good now? – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 17:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I think it is good to go! IAWW (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Layout — Section headers: Currently, §Kinship is within the §Grammar section; would it be better in a separate §Vocabulary section? (Could this be another opportunity for some more examples, per IAWW's feedback above?) Also, would it be worth rearranging the sections so that §Name is before §Geographical distribution and population? This would make it more consistent with articles like Erromintxela language; still, I'm not sure whether it's right for this article, so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts @PharyngealImplosive7. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
There are no examples in the Kjelsvik (2008) source of any sentences or phrases using that terminology, so we can't really add any examples there. I don't think it would be right to create a separate "vocabulary" section only talking about kinship, which is why I kept it in the grammar section. I moved the "name" section up as you said. @Pineapple Storage: Any further thoughts? – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 20:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
In terms of examples for a potential § Vocabulary section, I meant it might be good to see if there are any other types of vocabulary—aside from kinship terminology—that have been discussed by sources and might be unusual/unique to Nizaa. I had a quick look through Kjelsvik-2002 but soon got bogged down in the ins and outs of interlinear glossing (and went down a rabbit-hole learning how to use Template:Interlinear!) so unfortunately I can't give you any examples straight away, but I will try and have another look. Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Now that there's more info about the speaker community in §Geographical distribution and population, do you think it might be worth retitling this section § Demography and distribution (as in Nahuatl, for instance)? Also, given that §History currently only describes the history of the study/documentation of the language, as opposed to the history of the language itself, would it be an idea to title this section § Documentation? These are only suggestions, of course; I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Sure; I have gone ahead and implemented your suggestions. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 05:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Just noting than I am happy for this to pass as long as Pineapple is. You two have worked really well together during this review, and a I just took a quick gloss of the parts of the article I could understand, and it seems like GA status to me. Nice work! IAWW (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Yep, I'm happy to pass the article as well. See below :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
B. 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): Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Most sources definitely but the source with by far the most citations is Kjelsvik (2002)[3] which has 190 pages, so it's much harder to verify statements than it would be in, for instance, a short journal article. It would be good to include a few different refs to this source specifically, each with page numbers relevant to the sections/statements they're supporting; Template:Sfn might be helpful for this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Added SFNs for all the mentions of Kjelsvik (2002) besides the first one, with page numbers. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 01:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:TSI: for paragraphs which cite a single source, refs can just be at the end of the paragraph, but there are a couple of paragraphs (eg. in §Consonants, §Nouns and pronouns, §Verbs) where multiple citations are at the end of the paragraph, but they don't all contain all the information in the paragraph. (I got a bit stuck with §Vowels and have ended up duplicating ref 2 as I don't have access to it so can't verify whether it supports the first two sentences of the paragraph, just the last sentence, or both.) It might be good to separate out citations where they each support different parts of the paragraph? Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@PharyngealImplosive7 I've now done a pretty comprehensive/in-depth spot-check of all references (with the exception of TheilEndresen-1991, due to the paywall) and aside from one WP:TSI issue (tagged, in §Verbs) it's all looking great, so once that's sorted I think this criterion will be a strong ! Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The §Name section is closely paraphrased from Blench (1993) p.108[4] and there's currently no precise ref to the source text (ref 8 just points to the Glottolog entry for the citation, not to the text itself). This has also meant that there's a duplication of pejorative in that section, so this might need rewording. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I've now added the expanded Blench ref which includes a link to the source text. Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
There are a few bits of close paraphrasing from Kjelsvik (2002)[3] and Kjelsvik (2008)[5] in §Phonology and orthography and §Grammar. This might be one cause of the WP:MTAU difficulties mentioned above in point 1A; for both of these reasons, I think it might be a good idea to find ways to reword parts of these sections. It would also be good to double-check that there isn't too much close paraphrasing from Theil Endresen (1991);[6] I would check but unfortunately I don't have access. Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Both of these have been fixed to the best of my ability. Especially in more niche fields like phonology, it is kind of hard to preserve the meaning of the source without using similar language to it. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 23:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I totally understand! Yep, it's definitely tricky to avoid when there are so few synonyms for the technical terms! Good work on your latest edits tweaking the wording away from the sources; I feel like it runs a bit more smoothly now so this was well done. @It is a wonderful world, do you have any thoughts on close paraphrasing from a Wikipedia policy point of view? Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the check you did is really good here. As long as no full sentences or extended phrases are used, then you should be fine because most the content is just facts (WP:FACTSONLY). IAWW (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
That's great, thank you. In that case, I'm happy with the copyright status at the moment; I'll finalise closer to the end of the review. Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The article is pretty comprehensive! For smaller/lesser-known languages, it will always be difficult to provide huge amounts of detail as they are nowhere near as well-documented as some more widely-spoken languages, but there's lots of detail here with regard to the features of the language. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
No issues re viewpoint bias, but re WP:DUE: at the moment, most of the article is the §Phonology and orthography and §Grammar sections. These sections definitely go into a good amount of detail, but by comparison the rest of the article feels like it could do with expanding, so that the non-linguistic information about the language also gets its due weight. Would there be any way to beef the other sections up, for instance with a chunkier intro and the headers mentioned under point 1B above? Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
There isn't much info on the non-phonetic/non-grammar aspects of the language, though the lead definitely could be improved. The language doesn't have much documented history, any dialectal/regional variation documented in the literature, or interesting info on the vocabulary (there are lists of verbs documented by Kjelsvik, but I don't think that is necessary to add to the article). – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 03:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, totally understand the issue here; smaller communities and their languages are often underrepresented by sources. The work you've done so far on the lead and §Geographical distribution and population looks really great! I have to go now, but I will have a look for sources over the next couple of days and see if there's any that go into more detail re history of the language/community. For now, these are the only ones I've found:
Theil Endresen, Rolf[in Norwegian] (1992-06-30). "La phonologie de la langue nizaa (nizaà)" [The phonology of the Nizaa language]. Nordic Journal of African Studies (in French). 1 (1). Nordic Africa Research Network: 28–52. doi:10.53228/njas.v1i1.57. Retrieved 2025-05-15. I've only skimmed this one; I'm not sure whether you speak any French, but if not, I can have a more thorough read of it and see if there's anything useful.
is pretty helpful in terms of the Nizaa people's culture. I've added some information about them in the 'Geographical distribution and population' section. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 13:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pineapple Storage: I have no knowledge of French, so if you do, I would appreciate it if you could see if the second source has anything useful in it. I'll try to look through the Philip source to find any useful info. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 17:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@Pineapple Storage: The Philip source doesn't have much information about the language or the culture itself (besides the circumcision initiation rights which are not really relevant here). – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 17:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes fair enough, that would seem a bit off-topic! :D I had a look through the French source and given that it's a phonology, most of the content is already covered (eg. by Kjelsvik); there were a couple of points at the beginning about Nizaa farming and religious traditions, as well as the fact that Theil Endresen was the first to properly document the language, so I've added those in as ref 10 and ref 11, just to back up the existing sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The map is definitely relevant, but given that the article title is Nizaa language, it's not immediately clear which label we're supposed to be looking at. If I'm understanding it correctly, it's the patch just to the left of centre that says 'Suga'; if so, it might be worth adding a note to this effect in the caption. Do we know if this map is backed up by any sources? Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The image was added before I started editing the article, so I didn't really scrutinize it much. However, it is supported by the Ethnologue Report of Cameroon and Fanso (1989), which talks about Cameroonian history. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 01:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
That's fair enough! Would it be worth adding these sources to the article somehow, for verifiability? Maybe an explanatory note (using Template:Efn or ref tags) in the caption, with something along the lines of "For demographic information, see [sources]"? Or if not, maybe in a "Further reading" section? Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Pass or Fail: Pass! Congratulations @PharyngealImplosive7! Really well done for all your hard work on this article! Thank you for your patience given that this was my first review. As noted above, my authorship is now quite high, so apologies for this—I hope I haven't been meddling too much! The article is looking great, and I'm really pleased that this will be the next addition to Wikipedia's Good Articles about languages, of which there really should be more (in my opinion). Many thanks to @IAWW for his essential mentorship and contributions to this review. Congratulations again @PharyngealImplosive7! Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Just a small note on an area for potential expansion: the §Consonants section mentions Most Nizaa are not literate, and the few who are often only can read and write Fula in the Ajami script. The Latin romanization of Nizaa also has not widely been adopted by the Nizaa people yet because of the low literacy of the Nizaa. As a reader, this left me wondering about the history of romanization of the language, who developed the system, etc. There might not be any sources that discuss this, and I don't have access to all the sources cited here, but this might be something to look into (eg. if you want to take this further to WP:FAC in future). Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
It was Endresen who actually first created the alphabet/romanization. Added that to the article. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 23:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Re §Name section: I don't have access to ref 8, but the 2009 edition of Ethnologue states that 'Baghap' is their name for themselves; 'Nizaa' for their language.[7] Maybe Blench (1993)[4] didn't know this at the time/new information has come to light? Might be worth looking into some of the more recent sources to see if any others discuss endonyms of the community/language. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Interesting; I didn't notice that when originally reading that source. It seems contradictory to all the other sources in the article; maybe it was a mistake? Blench (1993) does mention that their was some confusion around another unrelated Adamawa language also called Nyamnyam, so this might be related. It might be worth putting a note in the article about this, but I'm not sure. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 23:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
A quick note re this edit... Apologies if this is a silly question (my IPA is rustier than I'd like it to be!) but what's the relationship between the tone markers you added and the way it's presented in the source? Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
I used chao tone letters, which are more accurate then the accents that used by the source (although those are more common in the literature). I also used the IPA long vowel symbol instead of duplicating the vowel, which is preferred in IPA notation. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 01:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Since this doesn't really have strong ties to any variety of English (Cameroon was a German and then a French colony), I'd prefer to leave it without any templates and let MOS:RETAIN prevent anyone from significantly changing it. I'm American, which is why I used American English, as it is what is most natural for me. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 17:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Just for transparency, I've been through the article and added bibliographic parameters to a few references for verifiability per CITEVAR. Hope this is okay! Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
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.
I'm going to be reviewing this article! I'm a new reviewer, so @It is a wonderful world has kindly offered his mentorship. I'll read through the article and start making some notes in the template below, hopefully today, or tomorrow at the latest. :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Looks like a fun one to review! IAWW (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Just noting that at time of writing, the nominator's authorship of this article is 5.4%, but they are ranked 5th in authorship so are eligible to nominate the article per WP:GAN/I. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: Unfortunately it looks like I'll be quite busy IRL for the next few days, so it might take me a bit longer than I'd like to complete the review. However, I'll still be able to make some progress with it every day, so hopefully I'll be able to get it done by the end of the week. Thank you for your patience everyone! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
No glaring errors that I can see, and the article is generally clear and fairly concise. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
The lead is a good length, and provides an overview of the key information. The only detail in the lead that isn't expanded on in the main body is the fact that the roller coaster was manufactured by Bolliger & Mabillard. This is mentioned again in passing in §Records, but it might be good to mention the manufacturer details in the §History section, along with an independent source that confirms the manufacturer. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Done – Though it's not really detailed beyond a mere statement, the History section does mention the manufacturer now with source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
§Incident is currently a standalone section, but it restates and expands on information in the fourth paragraph of §History; to ensure there's no repetition, and that readers can be sure they're getting all the information they might be looking for, I think it might be sensible to make §Incident a subsection of §History, and merge the information from the fourth paragraph of §History into that new subsection. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Just wanted to mention that WP:APARKS approach is to typically place an Incident section near the end of the article, which can cover incidents/accidents in more detail, and if any are substantially critical or important to the ride's history, include a brief mention in the History section as well. I agree that the contents in History should not simply regurgitate what is covered later in more detail. This version of Iron Gwazi when it achieved FA status demonstrates how minor incidents are not mentioned at all in History. This version of Son of Beast when it achieved GA status shows how a brief mention in History would work when done properly. I think the latter approach could work in this article as well. If agreed, I can make that change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out! I didn't know there was a specific WP:APARKS policy re §Incidents sections. I did have a look at a couple of other roller coaster GAs, and their sections usually described more serious incidents, often involving evacuation of passengers, injuries or even death, and normally more than one; for instance, Kingda Ka#Incidents and Top Thrill 2#Incidents each list several different events, while Banshee (roller coaster)#Incidents and Firehawk (roller coaster)#Incident each only mention one but these both involved deaths. I'm really not an expert in roller coasters at all, or the style customs in WP:APARKS, but it struck me that the incident described in this article doesn't actually feel like much of an "incident" but rather a maintenance event that caused the closure of the ride, so would make more sense as a subsection of §History. Again, I might be completely wrong on this, but this was just my perception as a reader with limited knowledge of roller coasters/amusement parks. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
No, I think it's a excellent point that for one single occurrence, we probably don't need a dedicated section or subsection to cover it. Instead, it should be merged into the History section. I'll work on that now. Also, just for clarification, there isn't a policy per se being followed by WP:APARKS. The WikiProject's guidance only suggests a dedicated Incidents section; it doesn't require one. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Ah okay that makes sense! Sounds like a good plan, thank you! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
This is a minor issue, but the fact that the roller coaster is hornet-themed is only mentioned in §Theme, but the bug net marketing campaign is discussed in §History, and the buzzing hornet sound is mentioned in §Ride experience. As a reader, I found these details a bit confusing, until I got to §Theme and learned about the relevance of hornets to the ride. It might be worth briefly mentioning this earlier in the article, either in the lead, §History or potentially in §Ride experience, to avoid confusion. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I've now added a brief mention of the theme to §History, just after the discussion of the beekeeper marketing campaign. Feel free to move/remove this if the mention would work better elsewhere! Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Done – Went with your first suggestion to combine Reception and Awards. Still room for expansion here, but it does seem logical to group these together while keeping Records separate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Ref 19[1] doesn't actually mention the fact stated by the sentence it's used to back up (On January 30, 2015, the final piece of Fury 325's track was put in place), which is a text-source integrity issue so I've tagged it with Template:text-source inline. However, this source does mention that Fury 325 was designed by Bolliger & Mabillard, so it could be used to back up the manufacturer details, as suggested above. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The source does state, "Fury 325 will eventually provide far more thrilling moments than the one it gave the media Friday. But the installation by a construction crew of the final piece of the roller coaster ... was a milestone" along with its headline to indicate this happened on January 30, 2015. If that's not good enough, we can simply remove it (and use it elsewhere), as Ref 19 adequately supports the claim already. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough, I must have missed the implied connection with the date! (It doesn't help that the dateline only says "January 30, 2015", so it wasn't immediately obvious that "Friday" meant the same day the article was published!) In this case, I don't think it necessarily needs to be removed, maybe just switched with ref 19 so that the more explicitly relevant footnote comes first? I don't think this would be a GA requirement though so it's not a huge issue. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Citation a is one of five footnotes at the end of the paragraph, which makes it difficult to verify (ideally these would be separated out to support individual sentences), but the source doesn't actively contradict the text. Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Done – Section has been revamped to sentence citations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Citation b The cited webpage doesn't make it immediately obvious either that the application was suspended in February 2014, or why it was suspended... I went to the 'Documents' tab and found this letter explaining the reasoning for the suspension, so that might be a better source for this statement (archive link here). Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Ref 33[5] The source does support the paragraph, but again, it's bundled with four others, which makes it difficult to check verifiability for each individual statement. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
fixed – This ref no longer exists. It was a duplicate of another. The section now uses inline citations after each sentence instead of paragraph citations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Ref 26[7] The source supports most of the sentence, except the statement that The ride was closed later that day; the article only says it was shut down after a visitor called the fire department, not when exactly that happened. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
fixed – This is supported by refs cited in the previous sentence. Repeated one of those for this sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Most of the sources inspected do support the text, but there are a few WP:TSI issues here and there. I will likely do spot-checks of further sources later on in the review, just to be sure. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
B. 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):
Well-cited, and more easily verifiable now that citations have been rearranged to support sentences rather than whole paragraphs. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Earwig's result is "Violation unlikely" at maximum 10.7% similarity, and I can't see any obvious close paraphrasing or unsourced quotes, so I'm happy to pass this criterion. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Article covers the subject quite comprehensively, with sections, coverage and levels of detail comparable with other WP:APARKS GAs. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, no part of the article feels excessively technical; the article stays on-topic, without any unnecessary/irrelevant tangents, and the level of detail reflects the coverage of the subject in the sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Most of the article is descriptive, and where subjective opinions are presented (ie. §Reception), the viewpoints represented do reflect coverage in the sources, so I can't see any issue with editorial/viewpoint bias. Only one small suggestion: §Reception currently only documents Initial reception, so it might be good to include some more up-to-date reception as well. From a brief search, I found these sources from more recently: [8][9]Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
I can't see any ongoing edit wars, and the ATBE is reasonable. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
All images are relevant to the article and provide good illustration to support the text. Given that the caption for File:Fury 325 (Carowinds) 1.jpg identifies the damaged support column, might it be worth moving this image from §Ride experience to either §Incident or, if the sections are merged as suggested above, §History? (This is only a minor issue!) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Good suggestion, but it seems the main reason why this image was added was to show a portion of the layout (relevant to "Ride experience"). I used the {{Stack}} template to reposition this, so that it is closer to the History section. If that's not good enough, we can simply rephrase the caption, removing the part that mentions the cracked column. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Good captions are provided for all the images; the video of the ride, File:Fury 325 Carowinds POV.webm, could do with a caption, just to properly frame it for readers. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to get to this! I’ve been very busy and am super grateful to Gone for the help. I’ll try to assist wherever I can. Therguy10 (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Pineapple Storage, just popping in to see how things are going. It looks like another very good review from you. I just noticed one thing you seem to have missed: the video has a watermark that should be removed (WP:WATERMARK). This doesn't seem to violate any GA criteria directly, but it seems like quite an important thing to fix. IAWW (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
The first watermark can be cut easily by cutting out the first section of the video. The icon in the bottom right is trickier. You could crop the side, or open a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop (I think that's the right place), though those requests often take a while to be answered. IAWW (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@IAWW Oh wow, I'm so glad you caught this! The watermark issue wasn't on my radar so thank you for letting me know. I will have a look into the options and see what's available. Thank you again! Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@IAWW I've had a look at the proposed Commons policy on watermarks and Wikimedia's legal guidance on removal of watermarks; from these, it seems like actually removing all traces of the watermark might be in a grey area re US copyright law. Because of this, I've left the in-picture icon in place, but trimmed the beginning and end of the video, and will upload it to Commons as a new version of the file along with a Watermark tag. I'll leave it to someone with more experience in copyright issues and watermarking to decide whether total removal of the icon is appropriate! Thank you again for catching this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for this. It is a more gray area than I thought. The article and review are both looking very good, and I would be happy for this to pass if/when you are. IAWW (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
IAWW, appreciate your assistance with the review. Had a question concerning your your edit here that removed the {{Stack}} template. I had added it recently, so that the corresponding image would stack next to the infobox and appear in the Ride experience section. Since roller coaster infoboxes tend to be long, we have used this workaround in the past. Is there an issue I may not be aware of? --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @GoneIn60, I accidentally published that edit without entering the edit summary. Apologies for that. At least on my device, the stack template was causing the image to move left of the infobox, creating a large whitespace to the right. IAWW (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Interesting. I didn't have that issue in a desktop Chrome browser. Do you see the same issue at Son of Beast (first image under Construction)? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes it displays to the left of the infobox for me. Is it meant to do that? I am on Firefox btw IAWW (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, just left of the infobox with text wrapping above and below the image. This is expected behavior and allows the image to appear in the section in which it was intended to appear in. Without Stack, it goes all the way to the right, below the infobox, which may cause it to appear in the wrong section. Hope that makes sense. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I see what you're saying now. You can revert my edit if you would like. I'm not a fan of the whitespace created but I'll let you choose what to do. IAWW (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I also see what you're saying about the whitespace after testing in Microsoft Edge. Depending on the resolution of your screen and font size (some of which can be controlled/changed in your Wikipedia account preferences), there is a slight chance that the stacked image will run into an odd overlap of the infobox, where part of the image sits below the infobox. When this odd overlap occurs, there is a lot of ugly whitespace to the right of the image.Unfortunately, that cannot be avoided in all situations, but stacking the image is still useful for those with larger resolutions and smaller font sizes. This could go either way, but I think I'll revert it back until some deeper discussion determines that we should avoid or deprecate the Stack template. IMO, it shouldn't exist if it's not to be used. GoneIn60 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Not sure if this helps; all looks normal on Safari on iPad. Therguy10 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Passed
Reviewing...
