Wikipedia:Featured article review/Music of Nigeria/archive1
- 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 Marskell 09:40, 21 August 2009 [1].
Review commentary
edit- Wikiprojects notified. Author inactive, < 10 edits this year
2005 promotion. The article has a strong lack of citations. The citations that are already there are too reliant on teritary sources, such as the Stern work, which is an introductory guide and only glosses over all aspects of African music. The article has also apparently attracted vanity edits; people adding examples of their favourite bands YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow why File:IKDairo.png and File:FemiKuti.jpg are GFDL but used with courtesy from a web site which claims copyright. The fair use rationales for the clips are very weak. "So-and-so is very popular." isn't an adequate reason. There should be critical analysis, explaining why this music is different from other genres or musicians and how this particular clip captures the style of music or the key features of the genre, etc. DrKiernan (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
edit- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, quality of sources, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per self YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per YellowMonkey. History shows no recent action on the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Lack of citations and no progress toward fixing the concerns raised in the review. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:31, 7 August 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.