Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/October 2011
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kept
[edit]- 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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by Dabomb87 15:26, 9 October 2011 [1].
- Notified: WikiProject Chemistry
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it lacks an appropriate number of citations (some sections contain no citations at all), has limited references, and because there are concerns by some editors that it is too technical for the average reader to understand. S Larctia (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for nowI agree that inline citations should be added for the prose, and for that reason am not !voting keep just yet. But this is reasonably technical subject matter in the first place. Assuming that inline citations are added (they usually are at FLRC), I'd be uncomfortable de-featuring until a discussion on prose balance has taken place among relative experts, for instance at WT:CHEM. —WFC— 15:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist due to lack of work on citations. However, I disagree with part of TRM's rationale, by virtue of disagreeing with the tag being added in the first place. —WFC— 14:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and add cites, deleting makes no sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.170.229 (talk • contribs)
- This isn't an articles for deletion debate, this is a discussion as to whether the list should retain featured list status. Thanks. --S Larctia (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I do not think this article is so technical as to be daunting to beginners. There is another list of isotopes in the stable isotope article, whose style is more technical and suitable for specialists. Since the topic is non-controversial, and reliable compilations of nuclide properties are readily available from Brookhaven, etc, the greatest opportunity for improvement, in my opinion, is not adding citations, but better coordination of exposition and choice of subject matter with related articles, so that, for example, the distinction between absolute and observational stability would be explained in a non-technical way in this article and a more technical way in the stable isotope article.CharlesHBennett (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear delist by default as it has a maintenance tag on it which has been there for over a year. Resolve that as a matter of urgency, if possible by talking with User:HighFlyingFish who I believe tagged it back in May 2010 (there's nothing on the talk page). Could also use some WP:ACCESS updates (just "pink" is used to denote "odd Neutron number"/"odd N". There doesn't seem to be an explanation of what an even-Z element is anywhere, and the caption is incorrect if the table is reordered. "Earth[c])" would expect that [c] to be outside the parenthesis, what's "a" in terms of t 1/2? Periodic table images and graphs are not accessible using just colour to describe the number of stable isotopes for each element. Mixture of date formats in the references contravenes MOS, and we avoid the use of bare URLs in refs too. I haven't examined the prose in detail, but things like : "All the primordial isotopes are given in order of their decreasing abundance on Earth.[c]. For a list of primordial nuclides in order of half-life, see list of nuclides." have issues - don't have a full stop after the note, don't see "for.. see.." in prose, that's why we have {{for}} and "See also" sections, if you insist on linking a page, do it elegantly using a decent pipelink if need be. Discovered that in a few minutes of review. If resolved I'll try to comprehensively cover the complicated text. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – Agree that a tagged article shouldn't be kept in the same condition after FLRC. In addition, I agree with the nominator that the inline citation is insufficient in places, and am not convinced by the argument otherwise. This list needs cites, not related pages. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by Dabomb87 15:26, 9 October 2011 [2].
- Notified: Nmajdan, WikiProject College football
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer meets the criteria for Featured Lists (fails ACCESS requirements, no inline citations, a weak, unreferenced lead, and multiple MOS violations). Albacore (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – Many of the issues in the 2006 list are present in this one as well, and there are zero inline citations here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - what I said about the other list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above, including issues with referencing, accessibility and a poor lead. No edits after a month at FLRC. Arsenikk (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by Dabomb87 15:26, 9 October 2011 [3].
- Notified: Nmajdan, WikiProject College football
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer meets the criteria for Featured Lists (fails ACCESS requirements, dead links, a weak, unreferenced lead, and multiple MOS violations). Albacore (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per WP:ACCESS, WP:DASH, lack of sortability (not essential, but easy), dead links, dependencies on blogs, and probably, WP:NOTSTATS. Is this of any general use/interest at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – For almost all of the reasons that TRM points out. I actually think this could be made into a nice list, and that there are plenty of people interested in college football rankings. Unfortunately, this isn't in good enough condition for FL status at this point, and I have trouble seeing it being brought up to standards during this FLRC. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above, including issues with referencing, accessibility and a poor lead. No edits after a month at FLRC. Arsenikk (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.