Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of sovereign states/archive2

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 The Rambling Man 08:47, 12 March 2012 [1].

List of sovereign states

Nominator(s): ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 17:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this because it was a former featured list, has improved and worthy for the title again. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 17:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, it does not appear that you have ever even edited this article, so why exactly are you nominating it? Second, this article has practically no lead section, you may want one of those. Although the article seems to have been in this state for a year or so, I think the table's format it a bit silly, having a column whether or not there's a sovereignty dipute. I also don't like the header rows with the arrows pointing out the top and bottom of the UN and non-UN sections, which are unnecessary if that info is a column. Based on the name of the further information column, it should only include notes about the sovereignty status itself, but instead there is much trivia included that has little or no bearing on national sovereignty, for example the fact that countries are commonwealth realms or have X number of federated states. Why is Sri Lanka's former name relevant? Reywas92^Talk 20:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unfortunately this list is nowhere near featured standard at the moment, here are a few of the main problems I came across:

"This is a list of sovereign states..." These type of opening sentences are no longer encouraged in lists as its stating the obvious
The lead is very short, there is now information on what a sovereign state is, I would expect to see at least three paragraphs what constitutes a sovereign state any issues this entails and other info
The table itself has many MOS failings. Firstly it fails WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT for how to fix this. Bold wikilinks are discouraged per MOS:BOLD. When using colours to represent something a symbol is also needed so readers who are colour-blind and understand the info as well. Also there is no key so the reader has no idea what these colours mean

I recommend you withdraw this nomination and take the list to peer review as there are too many issues to be fixed within the timescale of a candidacy here. In all honesty you should have gone to peer review before this nomination, as at the moment it only satisfies one aspect of the criteria and that is no edit-warring. Also looking at your editing history and the history of this list you don't seem to have contributed to it all, so I question the reasoning behind bringing the list here, when you've done any major work on the list and appear not to have the read the criteria. NapHit (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.