# Talk:Haitian Vodou

Explain this better pls cause i was curious if voodoo dolls are real or do they work none of this explains it i dont wanna know when they were invented or stuff you lied about your thumbnail:( 2601:204:300:8940:BCAD:C9D2:FB2C:B6F3 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

See Voodoo doll. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Vodou dolls are a symbol of health and care and not those clickabait videos where you can "curse" somebody. 45.58.90.197 (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Haitian Vodou/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 04:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
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?
There's no reason for it's omission, I can add the IPA in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
The oungan and manbo links are piped to variant spellings, but both articles seem to be titled at the same spellings used here.
Well spotted; I've corrected this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet 04:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this review on, Vaticidalprophet. No rush in getting it finished. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
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)

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. Vaticidalprophet 20:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@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)
@Midnightblueowl I would be interested in taking this over; however, it technically does not seem to be a "Second opinion" (which would still require the original reviewer to promote or fail), but rather an "abandoned review" (see WP:GAN/I#N4a)? Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
@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)

I wanted to raise concerns about this addition by an IP user, which I reverted as per WP:BRD, but which was then re-instated by User:Skyerise. The added sentence cites a book, Mambo Chita Tann's Haitian Vodou: An Introduction to Haiti's Indigenous Spiritual Tradition, that has been published by Llewellyn Worldwide, an esoteric/New Age publisher catering to a general audience. It is not published by an academic press, nor is it written by an academic. Given that we have a wealth of scholarly sources about Haitian Vodou available to us, I am not convinced that we need to use a Llewellyn book as a source, which, although not wholly unreliable, certainly wouldn't constitute the highest quality Reliable Source. 
On a secondary level, the added sentence does not properly belong where it has been placed; it discusses the consumption of alcohol as a means of facilitating spirit possession, but has been sandwiched between existing sentences talking about offerings to the spirits, a slightly different topic. I would strongly recommend removing this addition and see no compelling reason for its retention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Find the better source and move the fact somewhere it fits better. I'm sure it's both factual and citable though, so {{better source needed}} would be a better response then complete removal. Skyerise (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
That's a fair enough, Skyerise. I'll have a dive into the academic literature and see if I can find a better source. Have a good week. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Keep up the good work! Skyerise (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The link to the page is in the sidebar.
Kenixkil (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)