The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2020 [1].

Rastafari[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the world's best-known, if often misunderstood, religious movements - Rastafari. The article has been GA rated since October 2019 and is extensively sourced to high-quality academic publications. Having previously pulled Heathenry (new religious movement) up to FA quality, I'm hoping to do the same with this article, which I believe meets the criteria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • I've changed the image caption to "A man with dreadlocked hair, akin to that worn by Rastas", so the factual accuracy situation has been resolved. I'll try and see if we have a better resolution image available, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • For some reason, I was having trouble with the script before, but it now seems to be functioning and I've identified and removed the duplinks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. I have added the additional wording into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a mention of this in the lede, but I have also added it into the first paragraph of the main body. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; the article actually said "Rastafarianism" in the lede until only a week or so ago when an IP (who is also probably a practitioner) removed it. I have reverted their alteration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Rastafarian Movement" can also be added back? There is a stray "the" left in front of Rastafarianism now in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've sorted this now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've linked to Oregon, although in other cases adding links would result in the creation of duplinks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking more of for example Bob Marley, cannabis, ital, etc., which are not linked in any captions. Duplinks within the article body are separate from those in the captions, so would not count as dulinks.
  • I've replaced the one instance of "patois" with "Jamaican patois." Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've specified the disciplinary background of several scholars mentioned prior to this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rastafari" is sometimes used as a plural term for practitioners, however I've made the change from "Rastafari" to "Rastas" to make things clearer here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, we needn't be so specific here. I'll trim back the article accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think title capitalisation like now in "Afrocentrism and Views on Race" is discouraged. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changes the case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't explicitly clear in Barrett's text. His book was first published in 1988, but it's not altogether apparent when he conducted the research used in that book. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, FunkMonk. I'll try and deal with the other points that you raise at some point in the next few days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing the rest gradually in the coming time too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the wikilink so that it appears at the first mention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've re-checked Edmonds, who is cited here, and he does not give specific dates. I imagine that we are talking about the 1920s and 1930s here, although I could not ay that for sure. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I can't find any images of Selassie from 1966, the year he visited Jamaica, at Wikimedia Commons. Nor are there any images of him in 1941 - the image currently used is from 1942, shortly after he had reclaimed his throne. I can make that clearer in the image caption. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new caption is a good solution. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the photograph of Benjamin Zephaniah up to replace the low res image. Do you think that works? Many of his dreads are covered by a hat in this image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's unfortunate that the dreads are hardly visible. How about this photo (maybe cropped)?[4] The man has very prominent dreadlocks, and though we can't be sure he is a Rasta, he and the man behind him are wearing the Rasta colours. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that image. Hopefully a better image can be found in future, however; one that unambiguously of a Rasta with dreads. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think these are synonyms. I've added a reference to rastacap into the main text of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I don't recall any of the sources explicitly stating this although I quite agree that this seems like something that would be a plausible reason for why Ethiopia came to be given special status in Rasta belief. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I believe the character was fictional. I've made that clear in the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've lengthened the sentence to give a bit more on the topic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see the image reinstated in the article, although I think we have to wait and see whether it is deleted from Wikimedia Commons or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's unfortunate. A while back I looked for images of Rasta women on Wikimedia Commons but could not find anything. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main texts on the subject (most of which are written in the 20th century, admittedly) don't really give much attention to 21st century developments. Edmonds' 2012 book makes mention of the 21st century (at page 31) but doesn't really outline any major developments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone with "group", which is perhaps a simpler term that carries less baggage. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't talk about Shashamane at that juncture of the article (only much later) so I don't know if it would be particularly useful to the reader; to be honest, I also don't know how I'd make a decent looking map with Shashamane included. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am given to understand more generally, but this particular intersection is not something I know much about beyond what appears in the cited Haaretz article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not altogether sure; there does not appear to be much published research on non-black Rastas, which is unfortunate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, but there are a great deal of commonalities with Judaism too so I think that "Abrahamic" is perhaps the most appropriate categorisation at this juncture. Calling it "Judeo-Christian" in the lede, for instance, would likely raise more issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I'm being a bit dense, but I'm not sure that I understand you here. Could you clarify?
Yes, as far as I can see, the term Babylon does not have a wikilink in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand. I don't think the Babylon article itself would be appropriate as a link here, however. Do you think we should link to Iyaric#Other words instead? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine. The only other remaining point seems to be the one about the photo of a dreadlocked man that could maybe be used. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seen this, Midnightblueowl? FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, FunkMonk. Was in the midst of fixing the duplinks situation when you messaged - good timing! I've now added the Zephaniah image back in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time on this one, FunkMonk. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from A. Parrot[edit]

I also intend to review this and have made a few prose edits (hope you don't mind), but I think I'll review after FunkMonk so we don't collide with each other. A. Parrot (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the literature on Rastafari, so all I can offer is what I call an ignorant layman review. Beyond stylistic critiques, all I can judge is whether the article explains the topic thoroughly and clearly enough that I feel I have a basic understanding of it. And in this case, it does. A couple of my stylistic concerns are significant enough that I'm not supporting just yet, though I'm close to doing so.

Many thanks for giving your time and attention to this, A. Parrot! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through some of your easier posts and respond to the rest of your queries later in the week. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larger concerns:

  • I've made some fairly major cut-backs to this section. Take a look and let me know what you think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tricky one. I think you make a fair point but at the same time I think some would argue that, because we are dealing with a living religion that has many living exponents, there is a need to get its beliefs and practices out there first. In Heathenry (new religious movement), which gained FA rating a few years back, we have the same structure that is employed here. I'd be interested in seeing what other editors think on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk, Aza24, and Lee Vilenski: Any opinions on this point? A. Parrot (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had similar thoughts, but then I looked at other articles about religions and saw they had a similar structure to this. I think because it's such a recent religion, we may have a tendency to see it as more of a historical subject than mainly a religious one (and therefore focus more on historical aspects than the religious traditions themselves). But perhaps that would be to take it less seriously than older, more established religions, which would be unfair. FunkMonk (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't really see this as a super big blocker. Might need a wider consensus on how this should be treated, but it can quite easily be moved. FWIW Beliefs and practices are quite similar in this context, so I don't really see much of an issue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny you bring this up, since when I was reading through I was actually confused at the beginning of the Beliefs section (I didn't see the section name) because I thought it was the history section. In that respect I think it's more natural for the article to be laid ou with the History section after the definition, but like the others my feelings aren't especially strong here. Aza24 (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Based on these responses, I strongly recommend putting the History section first, but in the interest of not dragging out the FAC more than necessary, I'm not making that a condition of my support. A. Parrot (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've split off the History section to form its own article and have started editing down its length. If you have any further suggestions about this trimming back then it would be great to hear them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller stylistic stuff:

  • I've always tended to try and alternate images in the article, so as to avoid the appearance of everything lining up on the right hand side, which I think can look quite lop-sided and messy. For that (largely aesthetic) reason, I've done the same here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm largely OK with that, but the photo of Garvey and the first of Haile Selassie should look toward the text. A. Parrot (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've realigned the Selassie image and I've replaced the Garvey image with another that looks leftward. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fantastic idea. I've added some of the template links into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to go for the approach where explicit mentions of a monotheistic deity are capitalised, although references to other supernatural entities (i.e. "false god") are not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fair point. I've changed this to "millenarian".

Coordinator note[edit]

With no active support for promotion after well over a month, I'm afraid this one is bound for archiving soon. I'm going to monitor for a few days since there is active commentary but clearly it's miles off, with no end in sight. --Laser brain (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when my last few points are answered, I'm ready to support. And A. Parrot can probably begin reviewing now (was waiting for my review to finish). FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem as long as activity is happening. I'd hate to lose momentum at this point! --Laser brain (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24[edit]

Very interesting article – I want to take a look soon but am getting increasingly busy. Hopefully I can review the whole thing in the next few days Aza24 (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's more to do with the sense that (in the popular imagination) the term "religion" gets associated with hierarchical churches who tell people what they should believe and how they should practice. A lot of Rastas don't like those associations and thus avoid the term "religion" itself. Do you think there is a better way of rephrasing this in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah I see what you're saying now. "With doctrine and organisation" to me sounded like referring to something specific, but if it's just the general idea of a religious doctrine/organization then perhaps rephrase to something like "the use of -ism exhibits the religious characteristics which they wish to avoid" ? Not a huge deal, I think it might have just been me that was confused here. Aza24 (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone with "implies religious doctrine and institutional organisation, things they wish to avoid." Hopefully that makes things a bit ore explicit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a very good point. I've made the alteration you propose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does specify "injections" and I imagine that that covers vaccines too (or at least most of them). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there are multiple spellings in circulation. I've used that which seems to be most common in the academic literature on Rastafari; our article on Nyabinghi uses what I think is a less common spelling. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In these cases, it is because the citation will only support the first part of the sentence, not the latter. A subsequent citation is used to support the latter part of the sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having trouble getting the duplink script to work so I've tried to manually look for duplinks, but it's possible I've missed some. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elsewhere I've tried to use "practitioners" or "adherents" to create a bit more variety; if you think there are specific instances where "Many Rastas"/"Rastas" could be changed then please do let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This arises due to the template used to link to specific Bible passages over at Wikisource. If there's a way to remove the second appearance of the book name while retaining the template link, I'd be more than happy to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So ((Bibleverse)) (which I think is what you are referring to) says: "Usage of this template inline in the body of an article is discouraged - This template creates an external link. The external links content guideline states that "external links should not normally be used in the body of an article". Place external links to the Bible in parenthetical citations or footnotes." so should probably be within the reference itself, not the body as it is now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than putting the Bible quotes in the "Sources" section as if they were references, which I think could cause confusion, I've created a separate section, titled "Notes", where the Bible quotes now appear. I think that that deals with the problem quite neatly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "settlement of" before "Back-o-Wall". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your time and attention here, Lee. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem (I'm steadily working through all the current nominations!), I've replied to one of your points above, which IMO is a MOS issue. There are also some points listed above that I also noticed by other reviewers, so won't re-tread water above; but note any support here is also reliant on the above being addressed satisfactorily. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lee; I've dealt with the MOS situation now. I think the resulting change looks much neater. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Most of the time, the information in the caption is cited in the main body of the article, but the mention of Forchion is certainly an exception to that so I shall remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just removed that mention of Jesus in the lede; perhaps it over-simplifies the complexity of Rasta beliefs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, I had tried to use different styles of formatting to indicate how the information is contained on the page. Where I use (for example) "pp. 56, 57" it is because valid information is contained in separate places on both pages; conversely where I use "pp.78–79" it is because the pertinent text stretches over the course of the two pages, running continuously. If you think the result is too much of a mess I can certainly go through and re-format them so that all of the citations all use the range system. (I've also gone through and tried to correct all the examples where it needs to be "pp." not "p.") Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There shouldn't be any more locations for journals in the article; if anyone sees that I have missed any, let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed it and the information that it was being used to support as I could not find a working replacement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed this citation for one that links directly to the Reuters website itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sure where "General sources" came from; it used to be just "Sources" (which I have changed it back to). I've also gone through and ensured that they are in alphabetical order; there were a couple of errors (well spotted!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I have removed the one example in which a state has been specified. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is published in the Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, which is archived on JSTOR, so thus appears to have some scholarly merit. Perhaps it isn't as high in quality as some of the journals based in developed countries but I believe it still constitutes a valid source for Wikipedia's purposes. However, if there are serious concerns about this source then it can be removed without causing any real problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added publisher locations to the Further Reading entries, so I think that the formatting of the two sections now match perfectly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your sharp eye on this one, Nikkimaria. There's one point that I have yet to address but I shall try to do so soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now responded to that last point. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More