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?
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.
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.
Vaticidalprophet20:06, 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
@
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