Talk:Udagbedo

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Good articleUdagbedo has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 17, 2024Good article nomineeNot listed
April 25, 2025Good article nomineeNot listed
June 20, 2025Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review

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

Nominator: Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs) 00:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 18:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I'll get a review posted this week. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderwaalforces, I checked through two of the sources, and the referencing in this article is not great. A lot of the content cited to Egharevba (1968) is either unsupported (presumably it's taking credit for the sources next to it), or is copied with just a few words switched. A lot of the content cited to Walker (2006) is entirely unsupported. There's also one source that's self-published and shouldn't be in the article. Even for a longer article with many opportunities for an error, this would be too many referencing issues. With only a few hundred words, I'd expect the source review to basically turn up nothing. I'm going to close the review so the article can be reworked. I hope to see this make it to GA in the future once the references are fixed up! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  • Kings, Magic, and Medicine is not a reliable source, as Lulu.com is a self-publishing website.
  • It's probably a coincidence, but just to check: both Egharevba (1968) and Egharevba (1947) are cited to page 11. Is this correct for both of them?
  • As a side note, the same citation doesn't need to be reused at the end of each sentence. When a citation is placed, it's assumed that it covers all of the uncited sentences behind it.
  • The referencing to the legacy section seems confused, but that looks to be a consequence of trying to create a lead-style summary at the end of the article cited to everything. Neither source I checked mentioned anything about the expansion of his rule or having a daughter.

Egharevba (1968):

  • Unable to verify the Ga people maintained their cultural and linguistic ties with the Benin people
  • The story of Agbodo's death reads as legend, to the point that I hesitate to say it should be in wikivoice. Same with the sons of Ozolua testing their prowess.
  • Unable to verify expanded Benin's rule to the Ga region of present-day Ghana
  • Compare the article Agbodo declared that his remains would be interred in his residence at Ogbe to the source He often boasted that when he died his corpse would be buried in his house at Ogbe
  • Compare he instructed his sons to place his body in the second impluvium of his house to He ordered his sons to put his body in the second impluvium of his house
  • Compare The pond was filled by Oba Akenzua II between 1935 and 1937, and the Benin Divisional Council Public Works Department was built over it in 1949 to The pond was filled up by the present Oba, Akenzua II, between 1935 and 1937 and the Benin Divisional Council Public Works Department was built over it in 1949

Walker (2006):

  • Unable to verify Udagbedo was born in Benin City, the capital of the Benin Empire.
  • Unable to verify He was the second son of Oba Oguola, the fifth Oba of Benin, and the brother of Oba Edoni, the sixth Oba of Benin.
  • Unable to verify Udagbedo became the seventh Oba of Benin
  • I don't know if I'd mark it against the article, but He inherited a kingdom that had established trade connections with the Saharan states to the north and the Yoruba kingdoms to the west seems vaguely OR-ish, as it just mentions that those were trade connections they had, not that they're ones that were relevant to Udagbedo's reign. The Portugal trade seems more relevant to Udagbedo, but it's not mentioned at all.
  • Unable to verify He encouraged the cultivation – It only mentions that these are the things that they traded, not that he personally made any effort to increase their cultivation.
  • He also promoted the export – Same issue.
  • Compare leopard skins, soap, and later, palm oil to leopard skins, soap and later, palm oil – There aren't that many ways to rephrase a list, but copying the "and later" phrasing changes it from necessary similarity to a copy-and-paste.

GA review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2025 (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:Udagbedo/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs) 11:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 00:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Interesting topic. Reading now:

  • Oba Edoni – link in lead (even if its a red link)
    • @Jens Lallensack: thank you so much for picking this review up, I did this.
  • and established early trade links with Saharan states as well as, indirectly, with later European traders. – I do not understand the "later" here. They were not yet traders at the time when he established the trade links, or what does that mean?
    • In the Reign section, there's a sentence Although his reign occurred before direct contact with Europeans, his economic policies laid the foundation for later trade with Portugal and other European powers in the 15th century. Does this help clarify? --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • His reign is noted as the earliest recorded period – remove unnecessary fluff
    • done.
  • Concurrently, Benin’s trade networks were strengthened under his leadership, especially with states in the Sahara. – Where does the source say that trade networs where strenghtened with states in the Sahara?
    • Walker 2006, p. 336. says In an earlier period, Benin’s trade links were with the Saharan states to the north. They exported ivory, pepper and cotton goods in exchange for Saharan copper and Sudanese horses., do you think there's better way of writing this? I mean, there's definitely a better way, please help. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I have this now Concurrently, Benin maintained trade networks with states in the Sahara, exchanging ivory, pepper, and cotton textiles for horses and copper, do you think this is better? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the word "notable" from the article. This is superfluous and does not help; if it wouldn't be notable we would not mention it in the first place.
    • done.
  • After his death, Agbodo’s sons conducted a ritual in which they placed a magical stone upon his chest, causing his body to sink into the ground.[4] In response to this breach of custom, Udagbedo ordered an excavation; however, Agbodo’s remains were never recovered, and a pond eventually formed at the site, later known as Agbodo pond. – are you recalling a legend here? It this is a legend rather than a fact, it should be marked as such.
    • I honestly do not think this is a legend, at least according to the source.
  • Between 1935 and 1937, Oba Akenzua II oversaw the filling of the pond, which had long stood as a historical landmark. – Why was it filled? Why is that relevant? Context is missing here.
  • resulting in artworks that were highly valued – again fluff that does not add anything and can be removed (you already have the word "mastery", which should be enough).
    • I rephrased.
  • My main question here is: How do we know about this ruler? What are the historical sources, and how reliable are they? If possible, I highly recommend the inclusion of a "Sources" section (which should be the first section) to point that out. I also ask this because I am concerned because the article appears to blend historical facts with ledgends, making me wonder if this is based on primary historical sources rather than scholarly sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack There is already a "Sources" subsection within the References section, and most of the sources are scholarly/historical. Mostly based on Eghareva's A Short History of Benin, and Walker's When We Ruled, both authors are reliable authors whose works I have also used in my previous GAs of Benin history. I also, as I stated above, do not think these are legends but facts. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: Regrettably, and after much consideration, I decided that I have to fail this. The main source A Short History of Benin seems to be an historical primary source rather than a secondary scholarly source and can't be taken at fact value (the wp article itself states that it is unreliable). Particularly concerning is the apparent mixing of facts with legends in that source, which you took over to the WP article. I understand that you disagree, but a magical stone causing the body to sink into the earth where it magically disappeared cannot be considered a fact unless we believe in magic. We cannot assume that this source reflects consensus among historians, and it should be replaced by secondary sources wherever possible. Where this is not possible, we need author attribution (e.g., "In his 1968 book, Uwadiae states that …"), after the book and all its shortcomings were properly introduced, ideally in a separate "Sources" section at the beginning of the article (I here refer to the sources our knowledge of this Oba is based on, such as oral traditions, archaeological evidence (if any), writings, etc; not the sources used to write this Wikipedia article). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Suggestions for improvement

[edit]

As I was asked to take a look:

  • It makes sense to move the "Sources and Historiography" section up, as the first section, since the discussed works are the basis for the article. That's our usual order.
  • John D. Fage praised the 1960 edition's scholarly improvements, particularly the revised orthography, structural changes, and newly added material on the Ogiso monarchy and early Obas. – I think that this might be going off-topic; it does not really add to the reader's understanding of the reliability of the book as a source. Maybe delete or move to the book article.
  • Only red-link the academics if you think that they are relevant to warrant their own articles.
  • as well as the description of him as a "white man" – that's interesting, but you didn't discuss it elsewhere in the article? Where was he described as a "white man", in what contect?
  • apocryphal – link, and ideally explain, this term.

Hope that helps. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

done, thank you so much for the suggestions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2025 (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:Udagbedo/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs) 09:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 18:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I already reviewed the first GAN a few monthes ago, and recently provided a review on the article talk page. Therefore, there is not much to add for me now, but two issues still:

  • essential markers of an ideal ruler – I suggest to remove "essential". You already have "ideal", so this makes little sense.
  • Explain "Ogiso". No idea what that is.

Other than that, it looks good. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack thanks. I fixed the above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, promoting now. Congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.