I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've listed this article for featured article status because It has already been passed for Good article status and it looks as if it's good enough to be featured. Ukabia (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - given the large numbers of questionable sources, as well as concerns that, given the number of sources that have google books links to snippets but don't give page numbers, that most of the sources have only been consulted in snippet view, which can lead to problems with not seeing the full context of the work.
Joshua Project is not involved in primary ethnic peoples research. Rather Joshua Project seeks to compile and integrate ethnic peoples information from various global, regional and national researchers and workers into a composite whole. We are deeply grateful to the sources below who have provided data to Joshua Project.Data Sources
So Joshua Project has been categorized as unreliable on the Reliable sources notice board. I have replaced this with these sources:
Their company was featured on the PBS show African American Lives. The website had provided the DNA geenaology of the celebrities on that show, as well as off it, this page shows the responses gotten from African American celebrities on viewing their results and finding out their geneaology. PBS have also given it as a recommended internet resource, for African Americans trying to trace their genealogy, on this page on their website. PBS described the site as "The leading online web community for genealogical research; includes both free and paid-subscriber-only resources for beginner and veteran genealogical resarchers." Ukabia (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Per the MOS, curly quotes shouldn't be used for quotations.
Current ref 91 (Emenajo...) is lacking a page number, as this a book.
Current ref 95 (Olisa...) is lacking page number and publisher.
replaced with Groundwork of Igbo history. Vista Books, Lagos,. 1992. pp. 161—177. ISBN9-781-34400-8.
Current ref 96 (Groundwork...) is lacking a page nu7mber
Current ref 97 Amadiume...) is lacking a page number
Current ref 105 (Falola..) is lacking a page number
Current ref 104 needs to be formatted like a book, with author, page number, etc.
Current ref 114 ... what exactly is this ref to? A book? An encyclopedia?
Current ref 121 (Njoku...) is lackign a page number
Current ref 147 (Pojmann...) is lackign a page number
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Given the large number of references and the large number of queries here, could I ask that when a source is replaced that a note be made here saying what the new source is? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment - The articles references can be easily improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, there are quite a few MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Done, with Minahan, James; Wendel, Peter T (2002). Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World. Greenwood Press. p. 762. ISBN0313323844.. -- Ukabia (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully these issues can be resolved quickly. Awadewit (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Regretful oppose. Forget the niceties of the "MoS"; this has a long way to go. I've just gone through the introduction; there was a lot amiss even there. I then noticed that the previous edit (without summary and by some IP) had made the single change of "3000" to "6000", thus forming the sentence According to several sources, from 6000 BC to 500 AD, the Igbo people evolved over a long period in Igboland through waves of migrations. Quite aside from the question of 6000 versus 3000, the single source adduced (which doesn't itself cite any source) says nothing about waves of migrations, or indeed anything whatever about what happened between c. 3000 BC and c. AD 850. Which is hardly surprising because this source is a brief chronology to accompany a study guide for a novel. WP disapproves of tertiary sources; this looks like, oh, let's call it a quaternary source (something that the author probably derived from tertiary sources); it doesn't say what it's claimed to say, it is singular, not plural as implied; and it's summarized in a sentence that points out that 2,500 (or 5,500) years is "a long period". The sourcing is rough, the writing is rough, the whole thing is rough. It's an honorable draft that needs a lot more "person-hours" before it can be a featurable article. Morenoodles (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
PS I've looked more closely at that source, which does have a lengthy excerpt from a scholarly book published in 1976, and have rewritten accordingly. However, the paragraph of our article proceeds to cite a web page that adds an even earlier stage and comes close to repeating the material cited via the book on Things Fall Apart; it might be better just to cite the later source, except that this is within this website, which (despite being valuable in its own way, and hosted at a reputable university) doesn't cite its own sources and, with its concentration on art and culture, hardly seems the last word in physical anthropology, genetics, archaeology. etc. Morenoodles (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.