Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Melungeon/archive1

Melungeon edit

A well researched and informative article about a little known American population that is of increasing interest to folklorists, geneticists, and those interested in American history of culture. Badagnani 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No images at all? Surely at least one image can be found to put in this article. - Cuivienen 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an article about an ethnic group. Hardly anyone can agree on who is a real Melungeon, or if such a thing even exists. Furthermore, inserting a photo of a "typical Melungeon" would smack of ethnic stereotyping.- Pokey5945 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are many areas where photos could be inserted: notable authors on Melungeons (some of whom have traceable Melungeon ancestry and the "typical" features/appearance), officers of notable Melungeon organizations, scans of those old articles (or illustrations therein) about Melungeons from 19th century newspapers...some of the editors working here are experts and must have some excellent photos. Badagnani 03:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Imagine if the entry for "Judaism" had a photo of a "typical Jew", or a "famous Jew with typical Jewsih features." Do you see the problem here?Pokey5945 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is cluttered with external links. Please turn those into inline notes. The article also has no images at all. I'm sure that there must be some that will fit the topic. Soothing R 11:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant inline citations and footnotes. Take a look at Bulbasaur or Nightwish if you require any examples. I wish you success on implementing improvements to the article and I look forward to support this article. Soothing R 12:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on 'go back' will just take you to the point where you clicked the inline ref, so I don't find it all that annoying. This way of referencing also leaves more space for a better explanation of the sources. And yes, you are right in your assumption that this is just another way of stating sources, however..these inline refs have become somewhat the standard on FA. Apart from that, I think they make articles look a whole lot less messy. Soothing R 13:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The external links should be inline citations. The section on related groups has too many red links. This line doesn't make sense: "Genealogists....have traced the "core" Gibson and Collins families back to Louisa County, Virginia in the early 1700s....The Gibson family can be traced back even further to Charles City County, Virginia in the late 17th century..." --the way it talks about the early 17th century and then says "traced further back to...late 17th Century" makes not sense. Referring to further back should take it back into the 16th Century. There should be photos and/or maps. --- 13:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) [1] Lupo 14:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Though photos/images aren't necessary for FA status, inline citations are (commonly used are Wikipedia:Footnotes). The lead is very long. In addition, the article is inhibited in readability by the constant external links that exist all over the article. It also seems as if some wikification needs to take place. AndyZ 21:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most objections were to the lack of inline citations, which I have fixed. Please take another look at the article. I did not write it, but am somewhat familiar with the issues and think it's excellent. A photo was added of a self-identified (by a descendant) of a Melungeon family.--Parkwells (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]