Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of French monarchs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] List of French monarchs

Still a featured list.

The pictures do not have captions which is part of the criteria for featured lists.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any way to add informative captions if the list remains in anything like its current format. I suppose that's yet more proof that lists shouldn't be tablefied unless you really want a table. List of Portuguese monarchs has the same problem, as does List of largest suspension bridges. Not an inline citation in sight in the intro, and one or two statements that I could easily add {{fact}} next to. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the image captions should the criteria be amended to except tabulated images.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured list?#Image Captions. Colin°^Talk 12:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. This are good and clear lists. Rmhermen 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• oppose removal. Good, nice list Hmains 02:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the criteria demand ridiculous things, they ought to be changed. john k 05:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support removal. Whilst the original reason is misguided (the table effectively supplies its own caption by naming the monarch in the same row as the picture) there is far far too much body text that lacks any inline citations. That alone is a reason for this to lose its featured status. Colin°^Talk 09:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Which factual claims do you think need to be verified by inline citations? Most of the content of the article is in the tables, which are amply supported. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Almost all the FL and FA criteria are identical (as recently modified by certain User:ALoan :-) Eight substantial paragraphs of body text, full of facts, with no inline citations would be rejected these days at FA. In fact, there are no inline citations in this article at all, which is pretty hard to justify for a FL or FA. Colin°^Talk 16:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, you got me there :) But a featured list is not a featured article. The two sets of critera are deliberately quite similar, and there is some crossover in FAC and FLC reviewers and nominators, but the requirements are not and need not be identical. Yes, in an ideal world, the list would have some inline citations (someone may even demand it if it were nominated on FLC now) but the main information in this list is the list, which is quite well sourced enough for me. (This list was featured in March 2006, by the way - FAC objections for absence of inline citations were already commonplace then.) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Informative and clear list. Sotakeit 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral; I'd like to see inline citations, or at least some indication of where to look in each source for the information found in the article, but other than that this is a fine list. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)