The list was kept by Pres N 03:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC) [1]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I don't believe it meets the featured list criteria. It was promoted more than seven years ago and hasn't aged well:
Overall, some large structural issues, primarily combining tables and combining all text sections. The list currently is not at 2015 featured list standards. Seattle ( talk) 09:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I believe that all the identified issues listed above have now been addressed and the article mets the featured list criteria. Dan arndt ( talk) 13:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Outstanding issues that I've noticed (though it's looking a ton better already!):
@ PresN:@ Seattle: ::Was just looking at similar FLs and one of the most recent List of awards and nominations received by Lana Del Rey promoted April 2015, has each of the different awards separated into separate tables, even where there is only a single nomination - none of which are sortable. In fact none of the featured list of awards and nominations for musicians appears in the form as outlined in the comments. Is this just one reviewers personal preference or is there a common standard? We believe we've addressed all the issues to date and are prepared to make any further changes but would appreciate feedback on the article as it currently stands. Dan arndt ( talk) 06:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I support the single table, but holding this list to a standard not held to other featured lists seems unfair. I do have some comments, though:
@ PresN:@ Seattle: I believe that we have addressed all the issues that you've raised in your comments. If there's anything that we've missed then let us know. Dan arndt ( talk) 23:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Seattle: Are you okay with not delisting this list now? Or do you think it should be delisted? -- Pres N 01:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Crisco 1492: month of releases removed from lead. Can you identify any other issues - as happy to address. Dan arndt ( talk) 12:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Crisco 1492: have gone over the lead & removed extraneous comment but it is hard to address your issue if you don't provide a clear indication as to what exactly your concerns are. As previously indicated we are prepared to make any changes required, as shown by our efforts over the last three weeks, but need to know what you believe needs to be amended first. Dan arndt ( talk) 14:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Crisco 1492: I've had the Guild of Copy Editors review the lead and a full copy edit has been completed. This should address any concerns. As such the list should now satisfy the FL criteria. Dan arndt ( talk) 04:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Okay, if Chris is happy now, and I am too, then closing this FLRC as Keep. --' Pres N 03:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Pres N 03:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC) [2]. reply
I am nominating this article on the basis of it's lack of citation in certain areas.
More specifically:
I definitely think this article has declined in quality since it's promotion five years ago, it certainly wouldn't pass if re-assesed today. Azealia911 talk 23:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Delist per nominator; no progress made in the more than two weeks since this list was nominated for removal. Seattle ( talk) 18:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
NOTE: It's now been a month since the removal request was opened and no progress has been made to the page. Azealia911 talk 09:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delist Unfortunately, no progress in last month since nom. Issues remain of overlong unreferenced lead. Unreferenced content within the article, multitude of dead links, overall not close to current FL standards. Cowlibob ( talk) 21:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
A month in, no progress has been made; as such, closing as Delist. -- Pres N 03:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Pres N 03:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC) [1]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I don't believe it meets the featured list criteria. It was promoted more than seven years ago and hasn't aged well:
Overall, some large structural issues, primarily combining tables and combining all text sections. The list currently is not at 2015 featured list standards. Seattle ( talk) 09:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I believe that all the identified issues listed above have now been addressed and the article mets the featured list criteria. Dan arndt ( talk) 13:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Outstanding issues that I've noticed (though it's looking a ton better already!):
@ PresN:@ Seattle: ::Was just looking at similar FLs and one of the most recent List of awards and nominations received by Lana Del Rey promoted April 2015, has each of the different awards separated into separate tables, even where there is only a single nomination - none of which are sortable. In fact none of the featured list of awards and nominations for musicians appears in the form as outlined in the comments. Is this just one reviewers personal preference or is there a common standard? We believe we've addressed all the issues to date and are prepared to make any further changes but would appreciate feedback on the article as it currently stands. Dan arndt ( talk) 06:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I support the single table, but holding this list to a standard not held to other featured lists seems unfair. I do have some comments, though:
@ PresN:@ Seattle: I believe that we have addressed all the issues that you've raised in your comments. If there's anything that we've missed then let us know. Dan arndt ( talk) 23:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Seattle: Are you okay with not delisting this list now? Or do you think it should be delisted? -- Pres N 01:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Crisco 1492: month of releases removed from lead. Can you identify any other issues - as happy to address. Dan arndt ( talk) 12:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Crisco 1492: have gone over the lead & removed extraneous comment but it is hard to address your issue if you don't provide a clear indication as to what exactly your concerns are. As previously indicated we are prepared to make any changes required, as shown by our efforts over the last three weeks, but need to know what you believe needs to be amended first. Dan arndt ( talk) 14:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Crisco 1492: I've had the Guild of Copy Editors review the lead and a full copy edit has been completed. This should address any concerns. As such the list should now satisfy the FL criteria. Dan arndt ( talk) 04:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Okay, if Chris is happy now, and I am too, then closing this FLRC as Keep. --' Pres N 03:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Pres N 03:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC) [2]. reply
I am nominating this article on the basis of it's lack of citation in certain areas.
More specifically:
I definitely think this article has declined in quality since it's promotion five years ago, it certainly wouldn't pass if re-assesed today. Azealia911 talk 23:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Delist per nominator; no progress made in the more than two weeks since this list was nominated for removal. Seattle ( talk) 18:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
NOTE: It's now been a month since the removal request was opened and no progress has been made to the page. Azealia911 talk 09:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delist Unfortunately, no progress in last month since nom. Issues remain of overlong unreferenced lead. Unreferenced content within the article, multitude of dead links, overall not close to current FL standards. Cowlibob ( talk) 21:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
A month in, no progress has been made; as such, closing as Delist. -- Pres N 03:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply