Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cameroon/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 kept by Dana boomer (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC).

Review commentary

 * Notified: Countries, Africa

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks in-line citations in a many parts of the article (lots of unaddressed "citation needed" tags), thus failing criteria 1c. All the primary contributors and the FAC nominator have retired. I will still leave notifications for the wikiprojects involved in this article. I brought up issue at the article's talk page, but got no response for weeks.FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section focus mainly on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

*Delist and as Rschen says, would quickfail a GA review due to the honking great refimprove at the top of the article, mostly relating to a lack of verifiable information about the country's economy and infrastructure. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   11:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist no interest in fixing the article, unfortunately. It doesn't even meet the GA standard due to the sourcing issues. --Rschen7754 08:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pulling for now, awaiting further developments. --Rschen7754 23:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Were there specific developments you'd like to see? I'm happy to work some more on the article, I just need to know what people think needs doing. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing this to no vote, the changes look good, but I won't have the time to look closely enough for a full Keep. --Rschen7754 19:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist - Serious and blatant sourcing issues.  Dough 48  72  14:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I've added additional citations; anyone have thoughts on further improvements needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice! The lack of citations was my primary concern. I didn't find other issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm happy to strike my delist, though to preserve FA quality, I'd prefer a subject expert to check the suitability of the sources to ensure they're of a good quality. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you happen to know of any subject experts? The few I would think of are inactive. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well my most prominent memory of Cameroon is of them giving England a hard time in the 1990 World Cup, but on a more constructive note, the British Library have a dedicated department for African Studies, and Wikimedia UK have a dedicated Wikipedian in residence there who would be able to ask. See here. That's got to be worth a punt. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment – There are currently two dead links from the Cameroon Tribune. I haven't read the rest of the article in detail yet, but on the surface it appears that a lot of good work has been done and I'd be inclined to support keeping this at FA. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 00:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that Nikkimaria has now fixed them.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – The level of sourcing looks to be much improved over where it was at the start of the FLRC FAR, and most of the writing looked good to me when I went through it. I fixed a few things here and there, but overall I'm satisfied that this again meets the FA criteria after Nikki's work. It's a good example for writing a country article, which is a difficult type of page to do well. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment and query - apologies I totally missed this one going up for FAR, and I've always taken an interest in this as I used it as a framework for my own work on Rwanda. Out of interest, with the struck delists above is this now tending towards being a keep? If there are still outstanding issues then I could probably do some work to address them within the next few weeks. I imagine most of the sourcing issues were due to "drift" rather than anything inherently wrong with the article. As noted above, the active writer of this article left some years ago so stuff will have crept in unnoticed over the years. We could do worse than go back to the version that was featured in 2007 as I don't think FAC standards have changed so much since then that it wouldn't pass today. And on a subject like this, the amount of "new stuff" needed for the intervening six years is unlikely to be huge. Thanks! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Amakuru! With the struck delists above, it does look like this is tending towards being kept - we're mainly waiting on more reviewers/reviewers to return to amend their delist votes. Nikkimaria had done some great work in bringing the article back up to standard. If there is other work that you see that needs to be done, though, I hope you will feel free to make edits yourself or leave comments here. Dana boomer (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't see any serious issues left in this article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Dana boomer (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.