Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of florilegia and botanical codices/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:Matthewedwards 15:52, 25 October 2008 [1].
The list contains important information and is very pleasing esthetically. It might suffer improvement if in addition the list would be sorted by author. Tusbra (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- There is no lead
- Sections should be level 2 (==)
- Some items do not have references
Gary King (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick-fail This article needs significant work. It does not have a lead and is little more than a list of links. The list does not follow style guidelines (i.e. headings, en dashes in year ranges) and has a dearth of references. The references that are present need to be formatted. Sorry to be blunt, but this list is nowhere near Featured standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick-Fail -
- No lead per WP:LEDE.
- No sections.
- References are not in {{cite}} template.
- Many red links.
- Not everything is not verified with a reliable source.--SRX 15:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose All references need to be formatted correctly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick-fail, please. Premature nomination shouldn't be bloating our list of nominations. Appears to be a wishlist of new articles—see the plethora of ungainly red links. Tony (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.