Talk:Umbanda/GA1

GA Review

{{atopg

| status =

| result = Passed. sawyer * he/they * talk 19:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Umbanda/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Umbanda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 19:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

:@Midnightblueowl excited to review this! Fair warning, due to the size & breadth of the article, this review might be on the longer side, but I aim to be done with it by next weekend. It's a very interesting topic though, so I think it will be fun to review, and as a religion topic, it's up my alley. Thanks for your nomination! sawyer * he/they * talk 02:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

::I appreciate you taking this review on, Sawyer, thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

= Assessment =

{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}} {{passed}}
{{comment}} Overall very well-written. I did some minor copyediting & added some wikilinks, but that's about it.
{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1b}} {{passed}}

{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2a}} {{passed}}
{{comment}} There is a bare URL in paragraph 1 of the "definitions" section, after {{tq|while others claim that it derive from Kimbundu language meaning “medicine” or “healing”.}}
That was added in the past few days by an unexperienced editor. The URL they added would not constitute a Reliable Source so I removed that addition altogether. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2b}} {{passed}}
{{comment}} The sources themselves all look excellent. There is an unused source in the bibliography: Voeks 1997 (found via User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js) - this source could perhaps be moved to the "further reading" section, or cited inline.
Well spotted! I've removed the source for now, although I will probably check the book in future to see if it has relevant material in it that could be integrated into this article. I have already used it quite extensively while working on the Candomblé article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
{{comment}} I don't have access to the Brown 1986 source unfortunately, but I got my hands on most of the other major sources, and text-source spotchecking on random sfns throughout the article produced nothing of concern; it all matches up.
{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2c}} {{passed}} - these aren't necessarily violations of WP:OR per se, but I wasn't sure where else to put these comments.
{{comment}} {{tq|In Umbanda, it is usual for a medium to determine the identity of a person's spirit patrons. This is different from Candomblé, where the identity is more often ascertained through forms of divination; divination in general plays much less of a role in Umbanda than in Candomblé.}} (from section "relationships with the orixás") - this is confusing to me; what is the difference between a medium determining the patrons versus using divination to determine them? could use clarification here.
In Umbanda, the medium identifies the patron directly, rather than using divinatory methods (as in Candomblé). Would using the wording "a medium to personally determine" clarify things here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, I think that would be helpful! sawyer * he/they * talk 20:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
:I have now made that change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
{{comment}} {{tq|As spirits, they are considered to be "highly evolved".}} (from section "Caboclos") - the section about Caboclos is in the "lesser evolved spirits" section; does "lesser evolved" in this context mean "evolved spirits that are lesser" or "spirits that are less evolved" ?
As I understand it, the caboclos are "lesser" than the orixás, but at the same time are "highly evolved" in contrast to the exús and pomba giras. I think it best if I just remove this sentence so that it doesn't cause confusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
:Sounds good! sawyer * he/they * talk 20:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2d}} {{passed}}
{{comment}} Earwig found a "violation possible" but I checked, and the only matching things are names of sources.

{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3a}} {{passed}}
{{comment}} with 8800 words, I think it'd be hard not to cover pretty much everything! Very comprehensive, from what I can tell.
{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3b}} {{passed}}
{{comment}} and on the other hand, I found the writing to be engaging & not too detailed or confusing - there are a lot of non-English words used here, but that seems like it's a necessary part of covering this topic, where there aren't great English translations for the vast majority of the terms in use.

{{comment}} religion can be challenging to cover in an encyclopedic manner, but I've found nothing that stands out as UNDUE or non-neutral.

{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6a}} {{passed}}
{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6b}} {{passed}}
{{comment}} Glad to see we have so many good photos - they really help explain the topic.

Thanks, Sawyer-mcdonell. Did you have any other points that you wanted me to address? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

:I plan on doing some spot-checking of sources & maybe add some more prose suggestions/questions as I find them. As I said before, the article is pretty big, so I can't do it all in one day haha. sawyer * he/they * talk 21:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

::No rush! Take whatever time that you need. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

== Other comments ==

{{question}} {{tq|The social activities common among Brazil's Christian churches are largely absent from Umbandist centros.}} What kinds of social activities?

:*If I recall correctly (and I don't have the book immediately to hand), Brown was referring to church picnics, jumble sales, that sort of thing - events which bring the congregation together for socialisation (and maybe fundraising) rather than worship. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

:*:Makes sense - it might be good to add an example or two, just for clarity. sawyer * he/they * talk 22:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

:::*Good idea. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl I've completed my review, including source spotchecks, which all turned up well. Congrats! sawyer * he/they * talk 19:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)