Talk:Ndiadiane Ndiaye

Ndiadiane Ndiaye 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.
Review: October 30, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Africa: Gambia / Senegal Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	The Gambia portal This article is supported by WikiProject Gambia.
	Senegal portal This article is supported by WikiProject Senegal.

Royalty and Nobility

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Passed. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:07, 30 October 2024 (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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ndiadiane Ndiaye/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 12:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Freedom4U (talk · contribs) 23:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will be reviewing this per discussion here. I am not finished yet so I would appreciate if you wait to act on my review. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 06:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedom4U, reminder ping! -- asilvering (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder! I'll get this done tonight :) ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's taking a bit longer than expected, but I expect to get it done today. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

(I used a random number generator)

2. The page numbers for this reference are wrong. Check the pdf of the source here. I assume this reference refers to the quote Le Siin (capitale Diakhao) aurait compté 57 souverains, nommés Maad a Sinig ou Buur-Sinn, selon N. Diouf; les Gelwaar auraient commencé leur règne vers 1360. I'm not sure this verifies either of these claims. Alioune Sarr seems to be citing N. Diouf for the dating, not making the claims himself, and he also doesn't seem to say anything of "Ndiadiane Ndiaye's reign". Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, my French is not very good.
- This seems ambiguous to me too. Removed.
6. This source makes me quite concerned as to why he's being described as "semi-legendary" instead of "legendary". In addition, by using the language Most, as reported by James Searing, claim that he was... in the article, it is not making it clear that (1) Searing does not make a claim about what myth is most common and the language as it stands is also WP:WEASEL; (2) purports to describe the person instead of the myth. I checked [7] which also backed up my concerns, which states that they are describing the myth and not the person.
- Clarfied.
6. (second usage) Quote is correctly sourced, though I'm concerned that there are too many quotes in this article.
- Reduced the number of quotes.
9. Source cited correctly. I'm a little concerned about the construction of this sentence and the next sentence. I think that the significance of who Abu Bakr ibn Umar is and why it is not a credible claim should all be incorporated into the same sentence.
- Merged.
9. (second usage) This source is able to verify parts of this sentence. Assuming that [17] can verify the other aspects, there is still an issue with stating The legend of Ndiadiane Ndiaye begins when... because the source provides a longer account of the legend that begins with his birth.
- Expanded.
11. The citation lists a page number that is the first page of the chapter. I assume the chapter as a whole is supposed to be the reference, but each claim still needs the proper page numbers.
- Added correct page numbers.
14. No issue
16. Stated in the source.
18. Source states While oral traditions insist that the Wolof and Sereer voluntarily relinquished their independence to create the empire, it was dissolved by force. which I presume is the relevant element.
24. Stated in source, but is it necessary to include so many citations here?
27. Stated in the source.

MOS issues

In general

Wikilinks are very weirdly done. Several different wikilinks repeat themselves in the body (e.g. Senegal River, Lamane, Serer people, Wolof people, etc) and in some instances, the first wikilink is in the second mention of the term.
- Duplicates removed.

Lede

Dating

Don't wikilink years.
- Removed.
Use the circa template.
- Added.

Family background

arabo-berber affiliations definitely not the way to phrase this in English.
- Changed.

Legend

Remove the space before the comma.
- Removed.
ruler of the Sine,Maad a Sinig Maysa Wali, — add a space after the comma and remove the before Sine.
- Done
This match so enfuriated and ashamed Ndiaye — awkward phrasing
- Changed.

Legacy

Don't wikilink folk hero.
- Removed.
Don't wikilink Senegal.
- Removed.

Broadness/neutrality/stability/media check

There appears to be multiple versions of the legend. The legend section does a poor job at delineating between them.
- Reworded the lead in line with changes in the main text.
The historicity section seems odd. A few comments:
- It should probably be the first section, as it provides the necessary context in which to read the legend.
  - Moved.
- It appears to more be about literary analysis (analyzing the contents of the myth) than about historicity (analysis of whether there is evidence he existed).
- Very long blockquote in historicity. This should be paraphrased.
  - Paraphrased.
- Diop 2006 states Ndiadiane has left only an oral trace, no written archives. This state of things only adds to his mythical stature and it is consequently hard to verify his existence, for, like many mythical founders of nations, Ndiadiane's historical existence is not attested in the written records. This is not mentioned in the section at all.
  - Added.
I don't think it doesn't make sense for dating to be separate from historicity.
- Combined.
All or nearly all of the recorded versions share a few basic points... - The body of the article does not state this. In addition, the body does not mention him originating from Futa Tooro. Source 9 states he was born in Waalo and that he later made his way downstream to Walo, the land of his birth.
- Amended.
Ndiadiane Ndiaye is a colloquial way of referring to senegal and more specifically the Ndiaye family, a typically Wolof name. – mentioned here.
- Added.

@Freedom4U: Thank you for this thorough review. I have revisited the various references as well as the amendments you have suggested and, hopefully, addressed your concerns. Please tell me if there is anything else you would like me to look at. simongraham (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@F4U, reminder ping! simongraham (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry it's taken so long, and I'm sorry you had to ping me again. I've been completely swamped in real life working on my dissertation. I've checked the rest of the sources, and with one minor quip (that shouldn't hold up promotion) it looks fine. I will promote. :) ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:05, 30 October 2024 (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.

Wolof POV Pushing

As per my edit summary here, I've now found out the source of the POV and misrepresentation of the author. It was @Simongraham: who did it for reasons beknown to them. This editor cleaned up the bibliography section with the right info about the source, and then Simongraham came and edited it with the wrong information such as the translation and language origin. The title of the book by B.S. Diouf is "O maad a sinig : Kumba Ndoofeen fa Maak JUUF (Buka-Cilaas), 1853-1871." First, the book in written in Serer, not Wolof. Second the actual translation is "King of Sine Kumba Ndoofeen fa Maak JUUF (also known as Buka-Cilaas), reigned from 1853-1871." We have articles on both the King of Sine (Maad a Sinig) and Kumba Ndoffene Famak Joof, so I dont understand how Simongraham could assigned Wolof as the source language about a book written in Serer, and then translated the title as "[The Signing of Kumba Ndofeen with Mark Juuf (Buka-Chilaas), 1853–1871] (in Wolof)" The signing of Kumba Ndofeen does not even make sense. Kumba Ndofeen was a person, and an 18th century king - who ruled from 1853 until his assassination in 1871. After that blunder, they then nominated this article for GA as can be seen above! How does one go from "o maad a sinig" which means "the king of Sine" in Serer to the translation provided by Simongraham! Absolutely terrible! I expected better, especially from someone who work on GAs.2A00:23C7:E563:1700:C5:9CDF:1C49:2A33 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]