Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mandan/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 16:25, 20 September 2007.

[edit] Mandan

[edit] Review commentary

Major editors of the article User:Ish ishwar and User:Ganymead have been notified.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has been notified.

Article seems to lack a level of referencing commensurate with that expected of a featured article. Entire sections are unverifiable as they lack any citation whatsoever. For example:

  • The Family life section lacks any citations, making it impossible to verify where these claims exist outside of Wikipedia. There are very specific claims in this section made about Mandan family life which seem to come from somewhere; yet no credit is given and no connection is made to an external (outside of Wikipedia) source.
  • Again, the Subsistence section suffers from much the same.
  • In the Origins and early history "Early studies by linguists" are alluded to. Where are these studies? Where is the analysis of these studies done?
  • In the European encounter section, mention is made of one John Evans and his contact and work among the Mandan; yet no citation ties these claims to a reference.
  • The Smallpox epidemic of 1837–38 contains statistics which are uncited to any source? Where did these stats come from?
  • The Late 19th and the 20th centuries contains statements that seem to beg for citations, such as "While a new town was constructed for the displaced tribal members, much damage was done to the social and economic foundations of the reservation." According to whom? This is an interpretation of events which lacks any citation to a reliable historian or analyst outside of Wikipedia...

The article seems to meet all basic requirements of WP:WIAFA EXCEPT 1(c), but the ommisions from 1(c) are glaring; It would appear that the references exist given the list of references at the end of the article, however unless the claims that the article makes can be tied to said references they appear unverifiable... If the citations can be added to the article, I see no reason for it not to remain featured, however in its current state it appears below standard. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and factual accuracy (1c). Marskell 07:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, almost no edits since it came up for review, unformatted citations in addition to other issues mentioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove per previous reviewers. Plus irritating trivial links and MOS breaches by the plenty. Images crowd the text in places. Tony 12:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.