Wikipedia:Featured article review/Black Seminoles/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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:27, 21 August 2009 [1].

---

Black Seminoles

Review commentary

Notified Austinbirdman (major contibutor) Kitch (nominator), Wikiprojects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma, Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora

• Concerns: Criteria 1a, 1b, 1c, 3

• A 2005 promotion that is sparsely cited, per criteria FA criteria 1C. The article is somewhat confusingly organized and disjointed, with clumps of history mixed with a little bit of description of the Black Seminoles themselves. There is not a clear definition of who they are. One source says "The Black Seminoles are a small offshoot of the Gullah who escaped from the rice plantations in South Carolina and Georgia." http://www.yale.edu/glc/gullah/07.htm

• The article does not seem comprehensive. It mentions many bits of information but does not unify into a cohesive whole.

Example: "The community in Nacimiento, Coahuila, persists on lands adjacent to the Kickapoo tribe. Yet another Black Seminole community resides half a continent away on Andros Island in the Bahamas. Here refugees from 19th-century Florida wars found a sanctuary from American enslavement." This paragraph does not relate well to the rest of the section.

• Other concerns are prose issues, choppy, short paragraphs and failure to follow WP:LEAD.

• The map File:Map-black-sem-odyssey.png is undecipherable (to me) and is copyrighted with no Fair use rationale.

• "See also" needs pruning or removal.

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all the above concerns, and I wish I could overhaul it myself right now. It might take me a few weeks to get to if I can... --Moni3 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness , prose, lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delist for lack of inline citations. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per the problems outlined above. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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