Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/February 2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 19 days, significant problems not addressed and no recent attempts to address them. Delist -- Scorpion0422 04:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article fails criteria 1c because all of the current refs just link to a news or information site and don't give any specific pages. Thus, the information is not verifiable. -- Scorpion0422 15:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep listed Fixed. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See my list of concerns about a similar list here. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove there is a lot of faulty information on this list. Many of the totals don't add up and things appear to be in the wrong columns. Best to de-list this list while all of that stuff is sorted out.--Eva bd 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 19 days, significant problems not addressed and no recent attempts to address them. All three Delisted -- Scorpion0422 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by continent (Nomination)
- List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by name (Nomination)
- List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by date joined (Nomination)
I think these three lists should be merged together. The reason I am bringing this here first is because I think the articles should be properly delisted so that a merge could occur, and if they are delisted, I'll work on merging the three pages. They were created over two years ago before the table sortability option was introduced.
Individually, the List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by continent and List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by name are not formatted as well as it could be and the list of nations should be converted to table form (the one used at List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by date joined is a good start although the colour scheme used is a tad confusing). There could be a notes column for various things, but all of them would need citations. There doesn't appear to be any sources for the "Countries which did not join the Commonwealth on independence" or "Former members" sections. Finally, the lead needs a bit of expanding. -- Scorpion0422 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by population which isn't featured, but should be incorporated. I agree. Now that table sorting is implemented in such a way that we can exclude columns and handle dates, numbers, etc, then we should take advantage of it. I support your proposal that the old pages be delisted and a new nom would be required. I see there is a Merge comment on some of the talk pages. Perhaps a proper merge talk-banner/notice should be used to see if there are any comments. If the merge is approved, delisting would be automatic once the old articles were deleted--there's no need to delist prior to that. Colin°Talk 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 11 days, significant problems not addressed, speedily closed due to overwhelming support for delisting. Delist -- Scorpion0422 04:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a ripped version from the other featured list, List of United Nations peacekeeping missions. It is fully copy pasted (without past operations of course) with changing only one word from the lead. Even images are in exact same positions..
I'd support removing this article, since it has nothing that is not in the other more broad article. Therefore, this should be a redirect to List of United Nations peacekeeping missions. I guess featured lists can't be redirected, so I am making this a candidate for removal. --Pudeo⺮ 16:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge and delisting per nom. -- Scorpion0422 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge and delisting, needs properly formatted references / footnotes. Cheers. Trance addict 04:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge and delisting - Good idea, one stronger list. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge and delisting, since I never knew of it & would make more sense to have one main article on the same subject also mentioned. Just need to merge what is has since it looks better done there. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge and delisting. But I suggest that the "Current missions" section be put before "Completed Missions". Eklipse00 (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 22 days, significant problems not addressed and no recent attempts to address them. Delist -- Scorpion0422 04:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found another one that has no referencing to speak of except 3 weblinks with unexplained reliability. Definitely doesn't seem to meet current standards. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Citations aren't needed if there is a general ref covering them (ie. Hart Memorial Trophy). That being said, there usually should be at least one citation on the page, and all of the current refs just link to a news or information site and don't give any specifics. A ref should give a specific link to a page, rather than leave the user to find it, so right now I think it fails 1c because the information is not easily verifiable. -- Scorpion0422 15:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added references for all lists. I wasn't quite sure where to put the references where it is for the whole list, so I've put them in the introductory paragraph. If there's a better place for them, please let me know. Keep listed. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both cricketarchive and cricinfo look pretty shady. Are they considered reliable sources? -- Scorpion0422 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are both totally accepted sources in the cricketing world. Cricinfo is the leading cricket website; Cricket Archive is the leading cricket statistics website. The only resources possible that are more authoritative are Wisden Cricketer's Almanack and Playfair Cricket Annual. However, they both come out with their statistics significantly out of date. What is your concern with the sites? Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Cricinfo is run by Wisden, who are the World's Cricket Encyclopedia. Cricinfo has lots of published cricket journalists and former international cricket captains and so forth writing for them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both cricketarchive and cricinfo look pretty shady. Are they considered reliable sources? -- Scorpion0422 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead also needs expanding (maybe add a sentence or two) and the references for the entire table should be switched to general references, like the ones used here. The prose at the beginning of the various sections need citations, because a lot of what is mentioned isn't in the source cited. ie. The prose under the "Men's One-Day International captains" section isn't discussed at the link provided. -- Scorpion0422 17:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Improvement needed - There needs to be more prose in the article discussing the stats and so forth and the current prose has quite an informal style etc. Also there are POV claims in the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 42 days, significant problems not addressed and no attempts to address them. Delist -- Scorpion0422 04:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it looks like we're picking on the Football related FLs, but I first brought forth my concerns back in November and nobody has really attempted to address them, so here we are. There are no citations, and the only reference that is on the page is an almanac from 2004, which wouldn't cover anything from after that. The lead could be a bit longer and the "Teams with no Super Bowl appearances" needs a source. The "Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl wins" could also probably go because it seems trivial, and even a tad POVish, because why now also add a "Coaches with multiple Super Bowl wins" section? -- Scorpion0422 15:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me like someone interested in this article (meaning someone who may not be reading this page) needs to insert an up-to-date reference for the contents. That would resolve the issue. --Orlady (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you "fix" this list by inserting references to http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/history , http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/almanac/nfl/ , and http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/superbowl/index.html ? --Orlady (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sourcing of the article is much improved since 12 January. --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Super Bowl history link should be changed to a general ref, the "Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl wins" section should be removed, the "Teams with no Super Bowl appearances" section needs sources and the "Super Bowl appearances" and "Super Bowl wins" sections should be merged. Once these are fixed, I'll consider my concerns addressed. -- Scorpion0422 18:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I already changed the Super Bowl history link to a general ref. --Orlady (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Super Bowl history link should be changed to a general ref, the "Quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl wins" section should be removed, the "Teams with no Super Bowl appearances" section needs sources and the "Super Bowl appearances" and "Super Bowl wins" sections should be merged. Once these are fixed, I'll consider my concerns addressed. -- Scorpion0422 18:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sourcing of the article is much improved since 12 January. --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of the citation problems seem to have been resolved, but there's some note text about geography and stadiums that seems to be unsourced (in this article). Specifically, "Both Los Angeles and Pasadena are in the Greater Los Angeles Area, Pontiac is a suburb of Detroit, and both Tempe and Glendale are suburbs of Phoenix", "Miami Gardens was incorporated as a suburb of Miami in 2003. Prior to that, it was an unincorporated area of Miami-Dade County but the stadium had a Miami address." and "Qualcomm Stadium was originally known as San Diego Stadium and Jack Murphy Stadium. Dolphin Stadium was originally Dolphin Stadium but was quickly changed to Joe Robbie Stadium then briefly Pro Player Park before changing to Pro Player Stadium, then went to Dolphins Stadium and finally back to Dolphin Stadium." --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been over 2 weeks since I posted some of my concerns, and I don't think they are being addressed. -- Scorpion0422 15:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scorpion, some of your concerns were addressed, but it appears to me that the list creators aren't paying attention. Since you have a clear idea of how it needs to be fixed, it probably would be far less work for you to fix it than to convince someone else to make the changes. --Orlady (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 14 days, significant problems not addressed and no attempts to address them. Delist -- Scorpion0422 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be very few references and in-line citations. This was made featured in 2004, and the standards are a lot higher now, so this needs to be improved. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Huge portions of the History section have no citations, and you wouldn't see an FA with that much unsourced prose. The list itself could be a LOT better and should be more like the list of provinces at Provinces and territories of Canada and give more information. -- Scorpion0422 22:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per Scorpion0422. There has to be more information on provinces such as area, population, and capitals.--Crzycheetah 07:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 16 days, significant problems not addressed. Delist -- Scorpion0422 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the page because it has a lack of citations, a very small lead, and overall the article isn't very well organized. -- Scorpion0422 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To me the list looks ok. Citations are not appropriate in the list as the list refers to other articles. You certainly do not want to give a citation to original peer reviewed articles every time a new particle is mentioned. So, the citation to the text book at the end as is done now that covers the whole list is appropriate.
- The small lead is also ok, as there isn't much of importance to say in the lead of this list.
- Is the list not well organized? One could argue that it could be a little better, but overall it is excellent.
- So, in conclusion, this nomination seems to be based on only a citation count and a word count of the lead without evaluating the necessity/desirability of citations and a big lead. I therefore recommend keeping the featured list status of this article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um the lead is one sentence and comes nowhere close to "summariz[ing] the scope of the list and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in sections subsequent to the lead." There is plenty that can be added to the lead. Citations aren't only appropriate, they are necessary (see WP:V) and you say they aren't needed because "the list refers to other articles," well isnt that what every list does on Wikipedia, I mean that is the definition of a list on Wikipedia, and even lists need to have proper references and citations. The list is not excellent, it may be ok or just barely good, but nowhere close to excellent. I endorse de-list for now, unless the nominator's concerns are addressed.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] - I have to agree with the comments made already: the lead is insufficient and the article could be organized much more effectively. Additionally, I think a bit more prose expalaining each type of particle would be helpful, at least a bit more prose in each section. Right now the list is almost exclusively bullet points, which is nice for wikilinks, but doesn't really contextualize anything. Drewcifer (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be very difficult to add more meaningful text to all the "bullet points". Currently there is a wikilink that refers to the main wiki-article about the particle in question. These articles deal with, for lay persons, extremely technical stuff and it is always a Tour de Force to write a wiki article accessible for lay persons on such topics as Axions, supersymmetric particles etc. etc.
- So, adding more text would necessarily mean changing the list of particles into some big article as you need to have quite large introductions before each class of particles that are related. Perhaps this is what the above editors want, but it amounts to creating a new article, because currently it is really a list of particles, but you want to have some sort of overview of particle/theoretical physics. Count Iblis (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Any page with a one sentence lead should not have a star. It should at least be explained in the lead what the particles are and why they are important.--Crzycheetah 23:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 21 days, significant problems addressed. Kept -- Scorpion0422 05:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this page because it was promoted in 2005, and I feel that it no longer meets the FL criteria. The list does not meet the list critera 1.(c) "Factually accurate", or 2 (a) (the lead is too small). Recently, List of West Midlands railway stations was promoted, and is in much better shape and stucture than this article.
- There are no specific references for any entry, with regards to the line, zone,, the date it opened, or its previous name.
- The only thing referenced is the usage which is now three years old (I'm sure more up-to-date figures have been released), and that reference points to a footnote, which points to the reference.
- Two of the external links are crufty
-- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 01:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the structure to be more similar to the List of West Midlands railway. On top of what Matthew Edwards mentioned, I believe Docklands Light Railway stations should be removed from this list, since there is already a List of Docklands Light Railway stations.--Crzycheetah 21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The new format is an improvement, I never liked the table broken-up by initial letter but had never got around to reformatting it myself - thanks.
- References are now added. For opening dates these are either from a paper source or from a linked website. Rather than create a separate reference link for each station as the West Midlands list does, I have grouped these together using the notes section with the references linked there.
- External links section removed. Some of these are now in the references section. Others didn't add very much.
- Formatted the Further reading section to use cite book style for the book list
- To Do:
- Add Boroughs
- Improve the selection of pictures
- Expand the introduction
- Add a note about East London line stations being closed for extension works
- Add a map
- Hopefully, these changes will improve the list sufficiently to enable it to retain its Featured list status. With regard to the removal of the DLR stations from the list - this was discussed back in 2006 (see here), when it was decided to keep them as part of the list. As the List of DLR stations article seems to have expanded since then, it may now be appropriate to remove the DLR stations.--DavidCane (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is looking better already. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the above to do items 1 to 5 are now completed. In addition to improving the article, I believe that these changes now enable it to meet the 1(c) and 2(a) featured article criteria. --DavidCane (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I vote to keep a list I nominated? It really is a lot better than when I nominated it for de-listing, so if I can, Keep. And I don't see a problem with any pictures. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the above to do items 1 to 5 are now completed. In addition to improving the article, I believe that these changes now enable it to meet the 1(c) and 2(a) featured article criteria. --DavidCane (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is looking better already. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The new format is an improvement, I never liked the table broken-up by initial letter but had never got around to reformatting it myself - thanks.
- Keep It looks a lot better than a week ago. Definitely up to par with other FLs. I'd still recommend getting rid of the DLR stations, though.--Crzycheetah 01:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It definitely does. Is the usage only at 2006 for stations beginning A and B because of the time it takes to change the info, or because it isn't avaliable? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ..because of the time. Information for the "regular" stations is available here, but there is no info for the DLR stations.--Crzycheetah 06:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, well when I'm bored, I'll do some of them. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ..because of the time. Information for the "regular" stations is available here, but there is no info for the DLR stations.--Crzycheetah 06:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - get rid of the images. They're overlapping the table on 16:10. Will (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Something needs to be done about the images. The table has expanded in width since I added them, and now the single table format means the single image per letter selection doesn't make sense. I've started a discussion about this on the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As all votes, including that of the original nominator, are now to Keep, can we close this article's candidacy for delisting. --DavidCane (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 9 days, significant problems addressed. Withdrawn -- Scorpion0422 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article fails criteria 1c because all of the current refs just link to a news or information site and don't give any specific pages. Thus, the information is not verifiable. -- Scorpion0422 15:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep listed Now fixed. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead needs expanding and my concerns about this article are similar to the ones I mentioned here. -- Scorpion0422 17:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead expanded. Can you explain what a general reference would be, and how it would be clear which citation referred to which table? Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The title of the ref usually should be indicative of what table it sources. Or, you could do something like what is done here. -- Scorpion0422 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me if I am being inestimably dull, but I don't see how either of the articles you have pointed to is relevant to this page. This page has different references for each of the different tables. Those have one table for each page. Are there any other concerns on this list? Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thanks for fixing that. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, now you just need citations for the text at the beginning of the various sections. -- Scorpion0422 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a reference for the only statement that I can imagine needed one. Do you have any others in mind? Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, now you just need citations for the text at the beginning of the various sections. -- Scorpion0422 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thanks for fixing that. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me if I am being inestimably dull, but I don't see how either of the articles you have pointed to is relevant to this page. This page has different references for each of the different tables. Those have one table for each page. Are there any other concerns on this list? Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The title of the ref usually should be indicative of what table it sources. Or, you could do something like what is done here. -- Scorpion0422 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead expanded. Can you explain what a general reference would be, and how it would be clear which citation referred to which table? Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I guess you got them all. -- Scorpion0422 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I no longer have any large concerns about the article. However, I am going to leave this review open so that others will have a chance to comment. -- Scorpion0422 20:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Much improved - If there are no other objections, keep. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks good to me. Drewcifer (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Open 16 days, all significant problems addressed. Kept -- Scorpion0422 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this page because it was promoted over two years ago and I feel that it no longer meets the FL criteria. It is an unorthodox article, and very similar to one here, but I can see where having a large periodic table that includes links would be useful, so I have no quolms with that.
The list does not meet FL critera 2a (too small of a lead), 2b (doesn't make use of headings) or 2c (no table of contents). -- Scorpion0422 20:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead could be a little longer (someone on the relevant wikiproject could be asked) but shouldn't reproduce Periodic table as this is merely an alternative table view. I think 2a and 2b are irrelevant here and largely unactionable. Sometimes WP:IAR applies. Colin°Talk 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have to agree with Colin here, the lead probably does need expanding, but we need to ignore certain criteria if the criteria do not help the list or make it better. I dont see how adding sections or a table of contents would help at all. I would definitely expand the lead, but I think this is one of the best looking lists on Wikipedia, so it would be nice if we could not take that pretty little star away.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. One of the best of the featured lists. Rmhermen (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely a great graphic list, and I think if WP:IAR applies anywhere, it would apply here. That said, the lead could use a bit of an expansion.
Also, a See also section would be very helpful, since there's multiple versions of the periodic table on Wikipedia. Also, although this might seem silly, some sources would be nice. Even if it's just one source from a textbook, it would be helpful.I have no complaints with the core table itself, I just think the surrounding article could be a little more informative. Drewcifer (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Huh? The list has four sources and has had for over 2 years. Rmhermen (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck out some of my previous comments. Obviously I wasn't paying attention: the periodic table box thingie serves as a "see also" section, and there was references the whole time. My mistake. So, to re-evaluate the article: I think the lead could be expanded considerably, and the references that are there need to give proper attribution. Author, publisher, etc. A WP:Citation template would certainly do the trick. Drewcifer (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? The list has four sources and has had for over 2 years. Rmhermen (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said it wasn't a great list, just like you say, the surrounding article needs improvement. -- Scorpion0422 16:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, how to put this... this is not a list, it is a (periodic) table. In my opinion, it is more closely analogous to an image than to a list. I think it is a very nice depiction of the periodic table, so I understand the desire for Featuring it in some way. In fact, I have no objection to featuring it as sort of "honorary list" (unless we come up with some sort of "Featured miscellanea"). So, in that sense, I agree with the IAR comments. But in that case, I would go further and say that this type of "list" does not require a longer explanatory lead. All the explanation one needs is the Periodic table article itself. This is just a supplement to it, akin to the periodic table that is printed on the inside cover of most chemistry textbooks, also with little explanation. Most normal lists, such as List of tallest buildings in the world, need a lead explaining the nature of the list, the inclusion and sorting criteria, caveats, etc. Not in this case, which is IMO self-explanatory. This is the periodic table, shown in what is its de facto standard depiction.--Itub (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is kind of on the side of an image, it is a list because it "brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria", which is among the Featured list criteria. -- Scorpion0422 17:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ok, say you are right and the lead should be longer; do you have any actual opinions about what would fit in the introduction? I personaly cannot think of something missing in the introduction, and therefore, is comprehensive enough. Until I hear specific examples of missing information, I think the 2a criteria is passed.
- " a concise lead section that summarizes the scope of the list and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in sections subsequent to the lead;"
- Nergaal (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, a lead is supposed to be a summary of an article, so perhaps it could have the number of elements and a brief background, ie. When it was first used, how up to date the table is, etc. I think at the very least it should have three sentences. -- Scorpion0422 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since nobody else seemed to want to do it, I went ahead and made the fixes myself. I believe all of my concerns have been addressed. -- Scorpion0422 00:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to embody all the relevant list FA requirements to me. --mav (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]