Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British Bangladeshi/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:19, 14 January 2009 [1].

British Bangladeshi edit

Nominator(s): Mohsin (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because,it meets the criteria, it is well written, every section or sentence is backed up by reliable sources, and is understandable throughout. I have worked really hard on this article, by adding every type of information to this topic, and believe it is a really good article. Mohsin (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. There is quite a bit of MoS cleanup needed; please see my edit summaries and sample edits. It might be useful to ask Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to help out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article needs to work on improving prose. There are a lot of run-on sentences with unclear messages. The article needs a trim and sentences need to be reworded for simplicity and clarity. I am sorry I can not support at this time. NancyHeise talk 03:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Refs 16, 46, 70 are dead links. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the sources and they do go the link. Mohsin (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now - sorry, the article is comprehensive and generally well-researched but their many problems with the prose—redundancy and repetition are a big problem. I also have concerns over WP:NPOV particularly in the section on youth gangs. I have in my notes a list of 25 examples of poor writing, but I am reluctant to record them here because experience has taught me that these alone will be addressed. This article needs a fresh pair of eyes. I do not like saying all this but this FAC is premature. Please do not give-up on your efforts, there is a lot of great stuff here, but the article needs more work to bring it up to FA standards. Graham Colm Talk 13:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I have agreed to copyedit the article Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Graham Colm Talk 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not withdrawing my opposition. Brian Boulton has worked wonders with the prose, but other problems remain. I am particularly concerned over the reliability of the sources, as highlighted by Ealdgyth, the images used and WP:NPOV. Some of the images seem to be purely decorative and do not add any information. I like to see illustrations in articles, but I have learnt that by deleting one decorative image, another important one gains strength and impact. Please scrutinise each image and ask what information it conveys. Please be careful about neutrality; sometimes one has "to write for the enemy". And, please take the issues raised about sources very seriously; experience has shown that unless Ealdgyth's concerns are addressed an article's chances of promotion to FA will be compromised. Graham Colm Talk 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have complete my copyedits. I have no doubt left a trail of typos, for which I apologise and hope they will be picked up. My copyedits do not mean that I think the article is now at FA standard; on the contrary, there are many issues to be resolved with reviewers. Hopefully I have eliminated most of the prose problems identified by Nancy and Graham, so that they will be able to read the text more easily.

The particular issues to which I would draw attention are:-

  • Overloading of the article with images
Done. Removed excess images. Mohsin (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the demographic analysis seems based on the 2001 UK census when the British Bangladeshi population was under 300,000, Evidently it is over 500,000 now, so how valid is the analysis based on out-of-date figures?
Done. Updated population stats with ONS and estimated stat. (No other updated info available, due to being an minority ethnic group, which statistics are found in census every 10yrs). Mohsin (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been in the article a tendency to overlink. Straightforward English words do not require linking. Terms such as Sylheti do not need to be linked at each mention. I have delinked a large number of terms, but I think there is more to be done.
  • There is also repetition in the article. I have dealt with some of this, but further checks need to be made.
  • Some facts seem to be misplaced in the article, e.g. the reference to Monica Ali's book, and the reference to a political party in the Religion section.
Done. Removed misplaced references in sections, and ref to a political party is the correct source.
  • There are instances of over-referencing and under-referencing. It is not necessary to support simple facts with long strings of citation. At the same time there are sections, e.g. those dealing with youth gangs, that cold be more fully cited.
  • POV: I have removed some obvious POV wording from the article, but this aspect needs checking again
  • There are confusions in the article. For example, the very last paragraph, which depicts Bangladeshi villages as being full of hundreds of luxury homes, is frankly incredible.
Done. Changed the wording, to many rather than hundreds. (seen across many villages, backed by sources.) Mohsin (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, I believe that the article could be brought to featured standard, but probably through a long process involving peer review. Frankly, I am surprised that the article, in its pre-copyedit form, was given GA status; had this review been more rigorously carried out, many of the faults could have been identified and corrected then. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Fixed sources by adding the date published, the publisher and date accessed, a few left i think. Mohsin (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the link checker tool and double check all your links, several are turning up dead.
  • Current ref 104 (Lloy J...) is just a link to a wikipedia article. Do you mean to reference the book itself? If so, you need page numbers.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the nominator responding ? (No article edits since the nom was initiated.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Im just quite busy at the moment, will try to respond to the comments (done above 1ce), thanks. Mohsin (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done Fixed the book source, added ISBN and page number. Mohsin (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can resolve the issues of reliable sources, the nomination shouldn't remain at FAC; WP:V is policy and featured articles must be reliably sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll try to remove them or replace them if I can. Mohsin (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have removed and replaced the unreliabe stated above, except 'zmo.de' - because it is from a German research institute. Mohsin (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, what did you replace them with? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the unreliable sources were over referenced so no need to worry. However I have added three sources, which is the Banglapedia source[2] at the Political section, source for Akram Khan at Notables[3], and info about Whitechapel at Business section[4]. Mohsin (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what makes http://www.kallaway.co.uk/akram-khan-biography.htm a reliable source? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with a source from BSkyB. Mohsin (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to forgive me, not only am I a Yank, I review a LOT of FACs, so I have no clue what BSkyB is supposed to be. Can you clue me in? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British Sky Broadcasting owned by Murdoch. It's Fox in UK. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And still need to get some newspaper titles in italics and there are still a few website refs that are lacking last access dates. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it possible to get some sources for the following statements:
As a response to conditions faced by their first generation elders during the 1970s, younger Bangladeshis started to form gangs, developing a sense of dominating their territory. One consequence of this was that Bangladeshi gangs began fighting each other.In the past, Bangladeshi gangs have fostered criminal elements, including low level drug use and credit card fraud. However, for many the focus has changed to fighting over their territories. They use a variety of weapons, such as samurai swords, machetes, kitchen knives and meat cleavers, although guns are rarely used.Islamic fundamentalism has also played a part in the youth culture, illustrated by the efforts of one Brick Lane gang to oust out the white prostitutes from the area.
They seems violating NPOV issues.--NAHID 20:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are cited, from the London Review of Books, the Evening Standard[5] and Times Online[6]. Mohsin (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference query I looked at footnote 13, which is something from the London Review of Books. Is that an extract from the book, because it reads in an odd way and isn't the tone of a book review usually and doesn't seem to be dissecting the book as book reviews would do. Which would be a problem becuase the book is actually a novel. Also why is Monica Ali's book on the references, it's a novel. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I think the article is POV in various places, although not always the same POV. The gangs section is one. The history section seems a bit POV the other way with perhaps too much emphasis on the difficulties of being an immigrant and sympathising when this applies to everyone who moves to a different country with a different language. The other concern is that the history section appears to be purely London-specific when your infobox seems to indicate that 50% of BBs live outside London. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the first Bangladeshi immigrants settled in London, in particular in the area of Brick Lane as cited. The population started to disperse to other regions soon many years later but however there are no sources available only the history in London, and the proportion of 50% in a single region is quite high, in comparison to other ethnic groups. Mohsin (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/British_Bangladeshi/archive1&oldid=1090407207"