Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cameroon

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 promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Cameroon[edit]

I've been working on this article for the past four months, and I think it's finally ready to run the FAC gauntlet. This is definitely the most ambitious FA candidacy I've pursued. Peer review was helpful but netted some conflicting opinions on the relative length of various sections. I'll be working on turning red links blue as the FAC progresses. Thanks in advance for any comments. — Brian (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support I think it is a very good article. However, there are an overwhelmingly large number of redlinks.... Booksworm Talk to me! 09:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is no different from many Africa-related articles. I'll try to help stubifying some of them. Picaroon 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with Picaroon here. We have to factor in user bias here. It is difficult to get a large user base out of Africa creating articles about smaller things like you get in the US or the UK. I personally won't factor this in for this particular FAC, but efforts should be made to blue them and make overall Africa coverage wider. JHMM13 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have taken the liberty of removing all of the red links, they look unsightly and should not be in a featured article --Hadz^Talk 00:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strongly disagree with such an action. It is, in effect, giving in to systematic bias, by saying "oh well, no one's going to create those." You will find that the vast majority of Africa editors would rather see redlinks than none at all. Whether it is going for featured article candidacy should have no bearing on the inclusion of redlinks. And as to unsightly: who cares? Wikipedia is a work in progress; featured status is not the be all and end all. Please consider reversing. Picaroon 01:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have to agree with Picaroon here. Redlinks collectivly represent, in my opnion, one of the most important classes of data for the improvment of wikipedia. There are a lot of good editors who use redlinks (especialy the number of them pointing to a single article) to decide what to contribute. The idea that redlinks shoudl even be considered when evaluating for FA is I think bad for wikipedia. If we think that way we will never cover anything but western pop-culture and manga. Dalf | Talk 09:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. Like I said in the nomination, I will be working on the redlinks during the life of this FAC. By the time this article ever appears on Wikipedia's main page, everything should be blue and beautiful. — Brian (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments ~~Almost nothing about the climate. Should be some sentences on climate in the Geography section.~~ Yes there are some sentences on temp/humidity of certain regions. ~~But hard to get an idea about the climate of the country.~~ Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate on what else should be there? The article currently distinguishes the five major climate zones and gives some notion of their relative wetness and temperature. There isn't much else to say about the nation's climate unless we start quoting specific temperature ranges and/or annual rainfall, etc. Is this level of detail necessary in a broad country overview? (Not a rhetorical question. . . . ) — Brian (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, in a broad country overview, so many details are not necessary. Somehow I missed the sentence on ...all major climates and vegetation of the continent: coast, desert, mountains, rainforest, and savanna. In fact, the rest of geography has pretty good info on climate scattered within the text. Sorry for the quickly made comments above. I read the section carefully today and found it ok. Just one question, which portion of the country is having desert vegetation? The "northern lowland region extends from the edge of the Adamawa to Lake Chad"? Also, please try to replace "pleasant" in "...enjoys a pleasant climate...". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've changed the offending wording, and I've tried to clarify that it is the extreme north (the lowland region) that is arid. — Brian (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, incredibly high quality and very well-referenced. Picaroon 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Very nice article. I agree that the climate coverage needs to be expanded and a gentle reminder that the word climate is not synonymous with the word temperature. Instance: "Its average elevation is 1,100 m (3,600 ft),[45] and its climate ranges from 22° to 25° C (72° to 77° F) with high rainfall." Also, if you wish to talk about the climate in the Geography section, call it Geography and climate. Take a look at Germany for an idea of how to separate the two and summarize. JHMM13 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the two changes you suggested. As I asked Dwaipayan above, can you elaborate on what more should be said on climate? Unlike with Germany, Cameroon has diverse climate zones that vary in relative humidity, rainfall, and short/dry season duration, so I feel it is important to keep the organization as it currently is. But as for what else should be mentioned, I'm not quite sure. — Brian (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~—Support: it's good! Good things here, but the prose needs to be squeaky clean. Here are examples of little issues that are sprinkled throughout the text.
- Second sentence: why the semicolons? Commas would be smoother.
- Overuse of "or" instead of "and". See last sentence in lead.
- "Humankind"—a bit grand.
- Overlinking, which makes it harder to read and less attractive on the screen, and dilutes high-value links. Why are dictionary term such as "torture", "fishing", "livestock" and "propaganda" linked? We do speak English. "Nigeria", for example, is linked twice. Why? "France" better a piped link to French colonialism within the article on France (if there's such a subsection), or not linked at all. Questionable linking of common European countries; is anyone really going to hit those link while reading this article? (There are good piped links in this article already, which shouldn't be watered down.)
- "Touristic"—ouch—just "tourist" as an adjective.
- "Red tape, high taxes, and endemic corruption have prevented the private sector from developing." Prevented? So there's no private sector at all?
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a significant oil industry in Cameroon? No mention of it.
- Little glitches like "Other" in the middle of a sentence.

Please fix, preferably in collaboration with others who are unfamiliar with the text. Tony 22:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I know these were just examples, Tony, but I've gone ahead and fixed them. I'll print the article out tomorrow at work and give it another red-pen makeover. As for some of your specific concerns, I used semicolons because the three-nation sequence of "Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and the Republic of the Congo" need to act as a unit and separate out from the other singular nations. Perhaps they should be broken out into a second sentence? Nigeria is linked twice because the first link is in the lead. My usual practice is to link stuff in the lead and then reset once the main article begins. Petroleum exploitation is mentioned both in the "History" and "economy" sections. Should I change the word "petroleum" to "oil"? Thanks for the comments. — Brian (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Picaroon and I have tweaked the text quite a bit more. Would you mind taking another look, Tony? — Brian (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I've hardly done anything; please don't give me undeserved credit! I would like, however, for you verify that this edit of mine isn't in error. I added the accented "e" based on the second bolded spelling in the article, but maybe it wasn't a typo. Neither French nor the accompanying àććěñṭŝ are really my thing. Picaroon 19:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, that was a legitimate fix, so thanks. I've changed "Benue" and "Benoué" to "Bénoué" in a few other places, as well. With Cameroon, there's always a question of whether to use the anglicized spelling of the francophone spelling of place names, but most of the literature prefers French spellings for places in the French-speaking part of the country and English spellings for places in the English-speaking part of the country. Ethnic groups and languages always take the English spelling. I've tried to follow this convention throughout the article, so any help is appreciated if I've slipped up. — Brian (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - absolutely superb, with only one problem, that of the oil industry. While in decline (correct me here, I'm no expert on the topic) oil is, I think, the first source of exportations and of revenues for the state's coffers. I think you should add something about this, as its impact on the country must have been considerable.--Aldux 16:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. As I told Tony above, petroleum and its importance to the economy is mentioned under both "History" and "Economy". — Brian (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~oppose~~ support - Per Tony, the prose needs a bit of a copy-edit and tighitning up. I noticed a few he did not mention I will try and list them ehre or jsut fix them. Dalf | Talk 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The healthcare paragraph at the end of the "Politics and government" section is a little weak and could do with perhaps fleshing out and its own headding. It could also perhaps be reworded so that the redlink to "Healthcare in Cameroon" was not linked with the word "healthcare" alone. I still am looking over some of the later sections but I am going to go ahead and change my vote now. Dalf | Talk 03:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well-sourced article. It is also a very good article. --Carioca 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Uannis 20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Comment~~ Really good article, well done. Just that paragraph that begins with “On 1 January 1960…” doesn’t flow right for me and needs a massage. I had a tinker with it but left it because I wasn't confident about the subject matter. If that paragraph can be improved I'd certainly vote Support.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to fix it up and make it flow better. What do you think of it now? Picaroon 04:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Picaroon. Thanks, indeed that is an improvement. Good work.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I will be away from reliable internet access from tomorrow until the 30th. If any further oppose !votes are registered, I'd appreciate it if the article could remain listed until I get back to stable internet access and have an opportunity to address any issues raised. Thanks, — Brian (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wouldn't it be better to leave pics size unspecified as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. --Victor12 15:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.