This page is for the review and improvement of
featured lists that may no longer meet the
featured list criteria. FLs should be kept at current standards, regardless of when they were promoted. Any objections raised in the review must be actionable.
The FLC director,
Giants2008, or his delegates,
PresN and
The Rambling Man, determine the exact timing of the process for each nomination. Nominations will last at least 14 days, and longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be
kept,
consensus must be reached that it still meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the delegates determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list,
archived and added to
Former featured lists if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:
actionable objections have not been resolved; or
consensus to delist has been reached; or
insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.
Nominations may be closed earlier than the allotted two weeks if, in the judgment of the FLRC delegate, the list in the nomination:
has a clear consensus to merge or redirect to another article or list. This consensus may be shown in
Articles for deletion, a discussion on the article's talk page, a discussion on the relevant WikiProject(s), or other community venues that present a tangible consensus to merge or redirect the article; or
contains a clear
copyright violation and removal of the copyrighted material would severely degrade the quality of the list.
Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period as
featured list candidates) or lists that have recently survived a removal attempt – such nominations are likely to be removed summarily.
A bot
will update the list talk page after the list has been kept or the nomination has been archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLRC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is delisted, editors should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating at
Featured list candidates.
Place {{subst:FLRC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
From the FLRC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to
the FLRC talk page for assistance.
Below the preloaded title, write your reason for nominating the list, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Please note which of the
featured list criteria that the list fails to meet.
Place {{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of the page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated article.
Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FLRCMessage|ArticleName|archive=# of archive page}} (for example, {{subst:FLRCMessage|List of Presidents of the United States|archive=1}}) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through
article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured List status (identifiable through the Featured List Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FLRC indicating whom you have notified and that notifications have been completed.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not fulfill the featured list criteria anymore. I used this page as inspiration for my FL candidate
List of Swiss Nobel laureates, but found that the list in its current status has several issues:
Sourcing
The column "Family" is completely unreferenced
For many entries, the column "field" is unreferenced
Statements on citizenship at the time of the award are unsourced
Accessibility
Table sorting by name, date of birth or death date does not work. Unclear why "Field" or "Image" should be sortable columns
Uses column headers in the middle of the table
MOS:COLHEAD
Comment I have revamped the entire tables with sources and expanded the lead back to the FL version that was promoted in 2019. Since there were no new laureates, the table is unchanged.
However, the major (horrible) change that the article underwent was the addition of nominees. There are over a score of nominees for the prize. But they aren't significant enough to make the list and since we aren't a
WP:DIRECTORY, it was not included. Currently, I'm not sure if the nominees section is needed or not. I haven't touched the section yet. If there is a consensus to keep the section, I'm ready to rewrite that and find sources. Else, that entire section is out of scope and must be removed in it's entirety. Other than that, I would suggest to Keep the FL after the recent edits. Thanks.
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
12:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the improvements, @
The Herald! I think it is now much closer to fulfill FL criteria again. The laureates tables should be sortable, and the nominees tables still use
MOS:COLHEAD and the sort doesn't work properly. Also, please don't suppress links to images if they are not in public domain, as attribution is required (see
MOS:ALT).
Broc (
talk)
16:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have fixed the table and alt for the laureates. Regarding the nominees table, I'm still not sure if they are even needed or are under the scope. I really question the notability and need for the table. IMO, it should be taken out in it's entirety. The FLC nomination had discussed it at length. —
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
17:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I went
bold and removed the nominees section altogether from the article. Major nominees such as Gandhi and Aurobindo who made headlines regarding the nominations are mentioned in the lede. Others are just passing mentions are do not, IMO, has any significant coverage. Also, no other FLs on the awards categories mention nominees for the awards. Hence, removed it altogether. Thanks. —
The Herald (Benison) (
talk)
17:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Good work by the Herald; it would be nice (IMO) if it had little blurbs about who the laureates were/what they did like the Swiss list, but that isn't big enough of an impediment for me to not say keep.
Queen of Heartstalk07:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of the criteria. It has been tagged for needing citations for 7 years, with a good amount of that section lacking sources (#3b). The main table doesn't incorporate sortability and its structure should be updated to match
List of Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks (#4), and the statistics section duplicates material that either exists or should be placed in
Minnesota Vikings statistics (3c). Lastly, the prose is choppy and should have a good copyedit (#1). « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the current standards that we'd expect out of a featured list. It has issues with a lack of citations as well as accessibility.
Lacks appropriate references (need more), especially above a number of tables where unverified factoids sit
@
Bgsu98: Images are required to have alternative text for the seeing impaired, typically describing the photo in some sense. This is typically done by adding |alt=description of text to the image parameters.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
17:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply