The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:34, 19 April 2009 [1].

British African-Caribbean community[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: WP ethnic groups, UK Wikipedians' notice board, WP Caribbean‎, WP African diaspora, Rich Farmbrough, SandyGeorgia, MisfitToys, Bwithh, Zleitzen, Ackees, Jsferreira, Stevvvv4444.

Sadly, this article no longer meets the FA criteria as far as I am concerned, largely due to the inclusion of unreferenced material. The statistics section and part of the culture section are particularly notable in this regard. Also, the rugby subsection of the sports section is just a list of names, not even prose. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify primary contributors and relevant Wikiprojects with ((FARMessage)), and list the completed notifications here as seen at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Paleolithic diet/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have done. See above. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't pass this article as GA, sorry. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The lack of references in places means that it fails to meet Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I am not sure the lead comprehensively summarizes that article. 1/3 of the lead is about terminology, which could well be a separate section in the main body of the article. Besides the fact that I got more confused than enlightened reading this term's analysis!
  2. In citation 5 the source is Yahoo Travel?!!!
  3. In "Statistics" only a sentence is uncided. Is this enough to argue that the section faces referencing problems?
  4. "Sadly, African-Caribbean Muslims partly have a bad reputation ... " Ehmmmmm ... And citation 37 is obviously the work of somebody working on the article after its main editor left Wikipedia, and subsequently ceased to maintain it.
  5. "Sadly, after being bought by PLC( which owns pop station Capital Radio) and more recently Global taking the ownership of the station, many feel that Choice FM has sold out and no longer reflects the community." More sadness! Weasel, POV etc.

Well, I liked the article, and I don't see major referencing issues! Some sections look like a compilation of names or short biographies, but sometimes this is inevitable: the goal of these sections is to describe the most prominent members of the Community in the x or z sector. In "History" more printed sources and specialized works could be used, but, in general I liked the article, and I regard it as adequately cited.

What it needs is some cleaning, and an editor to update it. For instance, I doubt whether the Sports section in enriched with possible recent achievement of the Community's members (e.g. during the 2008 Olympics). This is the article's main problem, and this is the reason I can't vote to keep the article. I am afraid that, even if it is now kept (and it could be; it is a nice article, and its minor problems are easily fixed), it will not be properly maintained in the foreseeable future. Thus, and unless somebody comes it, and updates the article declaring his willingness to keep a close eye on it, I reluctantly ask for the removal of the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More