This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
When I was formatting the references, I noticed that the Nairapen source looked questionable to me. In the same edit, I saw a flag for predatory journals. Can anyone confirm which source it was?
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
01:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Ddddemonstrate: You said on the deletion page that the Nairapen source was only there to support the statement that the community spoke a particular language. I'm afraid I believe we should remove this source anyway. I believe the rule for it is
WP:USERG. Because it's user-generated content, it's not independently published. Anyone could post anything there.
The rule is not "everything must have a source posted on the article." It's "1) A reliable source for everything in the article must exist (posted or not) and 2) everything that is challenged or likely to be challenged must have a posted source."
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
20:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oh! Add the page numbers!! Go into each academic article that you used for a source and change page=[article's total range] to page=[exact spot where you found the information] if you can.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
17:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
General improvements
If we can post at least once source that isn't paywalled, this article will be less likely to be deleted. The people considering it for deletion will see for themselves that it is sourced.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
21:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)reply
To respond to "any other critiques?" it's hard to say without knowing why this article was challenged and draftified in the first place. One thing that could help is to add a clear RS that isn't paywalled and is available online. This is not part of Wikipedia's normal requirements, just something that could help the deletion discussion go better. I'm thinking that a basic source would do best. It doesn't have to be anything advanced, but it does have to be no blog or user-generated website. A university page, perhaps.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
17:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Here's the kind of thing I'm talking about:
State Department. The U.S. State Department has very simple, very basic pages on American history. It's not the best source, but it's clearly reliable, and it covers the subject in enough detail to, say, establish that the Wikipedia article is talking about something real.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
17:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Battle of Nsukka
Hi @
Ddddemonstrate: I had to revert this article as the references don't prove the battle even exists. The references that are there are woeful. The point to some volume which I checked and its about three short paragraphs which are insufficient to pass
WP:GNG. It will need more than that. References to exhibitions and book citation profiles fail
WP:V. It is in-depth coverage. scope_creepTalk12:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay, it looks like the predatory journal that I saw in my flag earlier was probably International and Public Affairs, most recently removed by user Headbomb. Next step, let's confirm that this source really does come from a predatory publisher and not a legit publisher with a similar name. EDIT: Okay, I see we copied the name of the journal exactly and that it's associated with "Science Publishing Group."
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
23:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply