Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

[edit] Lists nominated for removal

[edit] List of space shuttle missions

Notified: Space and Human Spaceflight WikiProjects.

I hadn't planned on nominating this one, but I noticed that it had several {{references}} templates, which isn't acceptable in featured content. There are several unsourced sections and the lead needs to be improved. Also, according to the page, the last time any of the main references was accessed was 2005, so this should be updated. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Remove for being under-referenced. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. The List of ISS spacewalks was removed recently for being under-referenced, and it had far more references than this list does at the time it was removed, and unlike this list, it contained no information that cannot be confirmed. This list is not only barely sourced, but it is also very out of date with regards to the flight statistics, and there is no way to verify the statistics currently given. It also fails nearly every single WP:WIAFL criteria: The lead is not up to MOS standards, the prose is not professional, nor does it flow well, it has no "structure" or sections to guide a reader, it is not visually pleasant, it is unsourced, it does not use proper punctuation, it is not comprehensive (many missions simply say "ISS mission"), and probably has many more MOS issues. Ariel♥Gold 09:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of popes

Notified: catholicism and Christianity WikiProjects.

This is one of the oldest FLs and as the process has improved, this one has stayed the same. My biggest issue is sourcing. There are no citations at all and no online sources and several sections with no sources such as "Ages of popes" (btw, could that be merged into the main table?) and "Religious Orders" (again, could this somehow be merged with the main table? A new column isn't necessary, it could just be added to the notes). I know books are usually much more reliable, but for a topic like this there's got to be at least one reliable source out there with a list. Also the lead could use polishing. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Remove Fails multiple WP:WIAFL criteria. This list may have been FL material under the older criteria, but it is not now. The layout of the WP:LS does not comply with the WP:MOS, with the lead image to the left in the middle of the LS, it is visually distracting and unappealing. Popes are some of the most historically documented, and written about people in the entire world, so I fail to understand why not one single inline citation is in the entire list, and there are only 3 sources given at all (and two of them are not in English!) This is really unacceptable for the English Wikipedia. Additionally, the "Ages of popes" as a separate section, isn't part of the list. I agree that these could be merged into the main list. The same goes with the "Oldest" and "Youngest" sections. The sections on Religious orders and numbering should be moved into the prose of the lead section, instead of in sections of their own. It is a combination article/list the way it is. I would also suggest using a TOC limiter to shorten the giant whitespace under the lead. It also has something funky going on with borders, they are showing up only in parts of the page, and broken in others. Ariel♥Gold 09:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Presidents of the United States

Notified: WP:USPREZ. I can't tell who originally nominated the list to FLC, either from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Presidents of the United States, or its history. :(

With the new criteria, the Lead is a little inadequate now. Two paragraphs to define the scope and inclusion criteria, but nothing to actually say what the US president is. I don't mean his constitutional duties, but what it means to be President, what the position is, to provide even the basic context for the non-US reader. Lead needs to summarize the page, too. Currently there is nothing to say how many Presidents there have been, who was the first, and who is the current. Other information, such as how long a person is President for (usually a term of four years), who has held consecutive terms, who has held office more than once (separately), who has died while in office. etc. I don't propose a rehash of President of the United States, or what the president does, but an overview of the presidents themselves.

Two other minor things are that the table could do with being sortable if it's possible -- not sure if it is because of the colspans, and the period after the S in Harry S. Truman. According to Harry S. Truman#Truman's middle initial, it is not used by the Official White House biography, and Truman didn't care either way, but I'm not sure if that should even be discussed here. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure with a little attention this timely list could easily be saved. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to maintain

• Right, I have real knowledge of Presidents or of the U.S.for that matter but I feel that this is a historically important list and so I will try and maintain its featured status. I have tried to address things like what the president is, length of term, and a summary of the list in the lead. I hope what I have put is correct but may need someone to check as I don't really know of the technical details of the job description or the election process. Anyway I think I've done most of the stuff you've said is there anything else that needs bringing up to current FL standards. I don't think this can be made sortable without the loss of either term of president number information but if any table wizards have any bright ideas on what could be done please say.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I have tried to make the opening clearer as to what the President is. I have also included a mention of the racially and genderly (because I don't want to say sexually) significant tickets this November. I'm not sure whether the word President should be capitalized or not; please make that uniform. Also, the syntax for the next president (make one for each party) should be prepared in comment brackets. (<!-- -->)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

think the race/gender thing would be better at United States presidential election, 2008 wrt to the new president. This is a list of past and current presidents, and gender and race has no effect on this list, since they've all been white and male. There's also no need to make syntax for the new president, who won't be president for another 3-and-a-bit months. The page is already a target for vandalism, and the temptation to remove the <!-- --> is too great. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we can leave out current election data until we know a winner, though I think it's worth mentioning they've all been white and male. From what I gather from the comments above, nobody has much of an issue with the list (other than sortability), just the lead. It'll survive.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably. But the process isn't just to bring up things that are blatantly wrong. Does it meet the rest of the criteria? Does the table need formatting differently? If you've got any issues with the list in any way, now's the place to raise them. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have made President consitently capitalised - I am not sure if it is correct but that is the style used in the President of the United States page.
• Wrt Harry Truman, "S." or "S"? - I don't see any point in going to something different as the Harry S. Truman page. If that page (a FA) moves its name to "Harry S Truman" then we should follow that trend, but it has been previously discussed there.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Presidents of the Philippines

Notified: Howard the Duck, WP Tambayan Phillipines

The major problem is the sourcing. No information can be verified. The lead, the list, and the notes need sources. There are two general references, but one is a dead link and the other is just the main page of the official website of the President. Ir also fails criteria 1 and 2 of our main criteria.--Crzycheetah 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Howard the Duck and WP Tambayan Phillipines notified. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Both links are live. Where is the dead link? As for the lead they can be easily referenced so I'll be working on that... –Howard the Duck 04:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

...and leads aren't really supposed to have footnotes, right? The only statements that should be referenced are the 4th and 5th paragraphs. –Howard the Duck 04:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"and leads aren't really supposed to have footnotes, right?" It depends on the information given in the lead. If it is anything that is a supposition, or anything that could be challenged as WP:OR, yes, it should have a source given for it. For example, the fourth intro paragraph, The First Republic and the Second Republic are not a part of the existing Constitutional succession (begun in 1935), and as such not counted in the order of terms. should be sourced, IMO, and I would find sources for the final paragraph as well, personally. I would also suggest that using inline citations (see WP:FOOT, WP:CIT, and {{reflist}} if you're unsure how these work). Ariel♥Gold 09:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with footnotes in the past so I should know how they should work. I'll be getting refs for third, fourth and sixth paragraphs. –Howard the Duck 14:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)