Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/November 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit2005
June 13 promoted 10 failed
July 20 promoted 8 failed
August 14 promoted 9 failed
September 3 promoted 8 failed
October 7 promoted 2 failed
November 7 promoted 6 failed 1 removed
December 6 promoted 4 failed
2006
January 11 promoted 11 failed 1 removed
February 3 promoted 8 failed 1 kept
March 13 promoted 11 failed 2 kept
April 10 promoted 5 failed 1 removed
May 10 promoted 7 failed 1 kept
June 9 promoted 10 failed
July 10 promoted 9 failed 1 kept
August 10 promoted 7 failed 1 kept
September 5 promoted 7 failed
October 8 promoted 10 failed 1 removed
November 11 promoted 8 failed 2 kept
December 20 promoted 11 failed
2007
January 18 promoted 11 failed
February 11 promoted 11 failed
March 12 promoted 10 failed 1 kept
April 20 promoted 17 failed 1 kept
May 23 promoted 14 failed
June 22 promoted 9 failed 1 kept
July 29 promoted 20 failed 2 kept/1 removed
August 41 promoted 15 failed 3 removed
September 42 promoted 11 failed 1 kept/1 removed
October 43 promoted 17 failed 2 kept
November 40 promoted 18 failed
December 38 promoted 15 failed 2 removed
2008
January 46 promoted 18 failed 6 removed
February 34 promoted 16 failed 10 removed/3 kept
March 65 promoted 9 failed 4 removed/2 kept
April 48 promoted 25 failed 2 removed/2 kept
May 50 promoted 39 failed 1 removed
June 10 promoted 9 failed

Contents

[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. --Spangineerws (háblame) 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Portuguese monarchs

Still a featured list.

Pictures are lacking captions. Criteria #3.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured list?#Image Captions. Colin°Talk 12:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose removal. This are good and clear lists. Rmhermen 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
oppose removal. A good, nice list Hmains 02:46, 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. In addition, there is only one named source for the entire list/article. I find it hard to believe that all this information came from just one source. Colin°Talk 09:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be nice to turn the redlinks blue though. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Informative and clear list. Sotakeit 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)