Talk:Igbo–Igala wars

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force

Nairapen source

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]

okay thanks I'll remove the nairapen source, any other critiques? Ddddemonstrate (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer in the next section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:16, 13 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_creep^Talk 12:07, 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]

Well, it's not listed in AMA 11, but it's not a life science journal, so it wouldn't be. We could ask for an evaluation at WP:RSN. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]