Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bongo (antelope)/archive3


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:08, 21 February 2009.

Bongo (antelope)

 * Nominator(s): Black Stripe
 * previous FAC

This article has undergone so very much peer review & refining over nearly two years from the last nomination. All issues raised have been addressed in full. Many people have helped edit and better this to the point where it is truly one of the best places to search for information about this animal on the web. All data, pictures & links have been double checked. Black Stripe (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose by karanacs There are citation needed tags scattered throughout the article (added before this nomination), and a great deal of text that has not been marked, but really needs an inline citation. Because proper sourcing may take a long time to fix, I encourage you to withdraw the nomination for now and bring the article back when inline sourcing has been added. I would also encourage a peer review after the sources have been added; feel free to invite me to it. Other broad issues to work on: Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - nowhere near well-referenced enough. Not sure if it needs more references or just more footnotes using the existing references, but as it stands now there are entire sections without a single reference. Edit to add: I see you address this issue here, but I'm afraid that I don't understand what you're trying to say.  Regardless, I can't imagine what you could say that would convince me that an article this poorly-cited is FA-worthy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - well over 20 completely unreferenced paragraphs. I understand you have a list of references at the foot of the article but you have to remember that any interested reader would find it laborious to check every single reference there to find a fact that isn't correctly cited in the article body.  There are some confusing sentences, such as "Gestation is approximately 285 days (9.5 months) with one young per birth with weaning at 6 months.".  I also note a lack of & nbsp ; throughout the article, as well as hyphens were endashes should be used.  The pictures are very good, well done there, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Four_bongo_calves_with_nanny.jpg lacks a Summary box. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead confused me - it makes it seem like this is the merged version of two articles. This needs to be reorganized for clarity and to eliminated very short paragraphs.  The lead also does not adequately summarize the body of the article (see WP:LEAD)
 * References need to be formatted properly (italicize book names, make sure all books have the page numbers listed. The references used appear to be quality, reliable sources, they just aren't cited enough.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.