Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Cape Colony from 1870 to 1899/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 18:44, 22 February 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notified WikiProject South Africa, WikiProject Africa, User:Hmains and User:PZFUN

Same issues as its companion piece History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870, which was recently removed. Most important issue is no inline citations (1c). --Peter Andersen (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove Judging from previous history, no-one is going to work on this article, so I think an early vote is justifiable. DrKiernan (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove - per nom. --Peter Andersen (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong retain. We've been here before. A well-written, comprehensive, article, with clear principal sources. The only instances of citations requested are quotes with such prose attributions as:
 * A pamphlet written in 1885 for an association called the Empire League on the behalf of the Bond, stated the following:
 * a speech he [Cecil Rhodes] gave in 1894 in Cape Town:


 * It would be nice to know the title of the pamphlet, and the exact volume of Rhodes' works in which the speech is to be found, but neither should be difficult to verify; I recognize the Rhodes quotation myself, and I am neither South African nor an expert on their history.


 * Beyond that, complaints of lack of citations should have instances of claims which are hard for the reader to verify and likely to be challenged; otherwise this becomes "delist: I didn't count enough footnotes", which is not actionable, and impossible to fix. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've heard that before too. It is pointless and unnecessary to insert citation needed markers when virtually every other sentence requires one. DrKiernan (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove The points made be Manderson are reasonable and sensible, but the problems remain, in my view, that with this sort of articles it's very hard to understand what is unsourced, because it comes from the first utterly unsourced version, and what is sourced. Also, in historical topics on not-too-well-known areas, it is best to know which points are covered by which specific sources, with the page numbers included to make easier verification.--Aldux (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.