The list was removed by Pres N 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC) [1]. reply
This is Wikipedia's oldest remaining Featured list, but unfortunately it has a number of issues, though admittedly ones that can probably be resolved without excessive effort. To assess it against the criteria, I would say it primarily suffers against criteria 3a and 4, but it has problems with a number of them.
Hopefully we can work on this to bring it back to the standard needed, but I fear that without interest, it would fall out of date again soon even so. Harrias talk 09:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Delist per nominator; no progress made since the list was nominated for demotion. Seattle ( talk) 18:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Closing as Delist -- Pres N 19:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Pres N 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC) [2]. reply
Unsourced English release dates. Summaries no longer adequate, complete, or completely missing. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 03:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Delist The lead doesn't look too bad... dead links bring the quality below featured list requirements... Titles in references shouldn't be in all-caps... I couldn't find evidence of direct copy and paste copyright violations... Summaries need a copyedit... The last seven chapters need summaries... if anyone can address these concerns, I'm happy to change my position. Seattle ( talk) 18:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Closing as Delist --
Pres
N
19:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
The list was removed by Pres N 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC) [3]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list removal because of a complete lack of citations. Recently we demoted all the individual provinces featured list as they all had the same issue, being nominated in 2006. On those pages I informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums but no one had the time or interest to update the citations. It is also written in a style no longer used. For example "This article provides a summary of...", "For federal by-elections... see List of federal by-elections in Canada. For the eight general elections of the Province of Canada held in 1843 to 1864 before confederation in 1867, see List of elections in the Province of Canada." All found in the lead which seems to end by 1993. Mattximus ( talk) 01:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Closing as Delist -- Pres N 19:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Pres N 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [4]. reply
Promoted in 2007, this has very similar issues to the other "List of birds of.." FLRCs below. Some of the primary issues are:
Unfortunately, no lists have been promoted to FL status in the last couple of years that I can point to as an example of how to model this article, but I personally feel that it is clear that this is a long way from our current FL criteria. Harrias talk 09:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Closing as delist - between the discussion here and at List of birds of Belize over the past four weeks, it seems clear that these lists are not up to snuff and aren't being fixed. -- Pres N 19:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Pres N 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [5]. reply
Promoted in 2005, this list shows its age. "This list of birds of Oklahoma includes.." gives you an idea of the problems to come.
Unfortunately, no lists have been promoted to FL status in the last couple of years that I can point to as an example of how to model this article, but I personally feel that it is clear that this is a long way from our current FL criteria. Harrias talk 09:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Harrias: several of these old lists are deficient by current standards with vague and inadequate referencing and poor introductions. I hesitate to suggest my own List of birds of Thailand as a model, but it's better than the article at issue. I'd defeature if it's not fixed (I won't do it) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Closing as delist - between the discussion here and at List of birds of Belize over the past four weeks, it seems clear that these lists are not up to snuff and aren't being fixed. -- Pres N 19:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Pres N 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [6]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list removal for failing points one two, four, and 5(a) of the featured list criteria:
I'm watching this page now. I'm not wedded to the family introductory text, although it does no harm. I don't think that it's likely that such basic info will be referenced, so if it's being challenged it might as well go. I can't see the point of abandoning the current form and losing content, when all that is gained is dubious sortability. The only logical order for a country list is taxonomic, and if you are looking for a particular specie, well that's why the ToC's there. The IUCN is less relevant than the status within the country; for example Pied-billed Grebe may well be least concern globally, but your mock-up gives no idea of its status in Belize. In the UK it's a very rare vagrant, and just to have the IUCN tag would be highly misleading.
Closing as delist - between the discussion here and at the other bird FLRCs over the past four weeks, it seems clear that these lists are not up to snuff and aren't being fixed. -- Pres N 19:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Pres N 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC) [1]. reply
This is Wikipedia's oldest remaining Featured list, but unfortunately it has a number of issues, though admittedly ones that can probably be resolved without excessive effort. To assess it against the criteria, I would say it primarily suffers against criteria 3a and 4, but it has problems with a number of them.
Hopefully we can work on this to bring it back to the standard needed, but I fear that without interest, it would fall out of date again soon even so. Harrias talk 09:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Delist per nominator; no progress made since the list was nominated for demotion. Seattle ( talk) 18:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Closing as Delist -- Pres N 19:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Pres N 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC) [2]. reply
Unsourced English release dates. Summaries no longer adequate, complete, or completely missing. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 03:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Delist The lead doesn't look too bad... dead links bring the quality below featured list requirements... Titles in references shouldn't be in all-caps... I couldn't find evidence of direct copy and paste copyright violations... Summaries need a copyedit... The last seven chapters need summaries... if anyone can address these concerns, I'm happy to change my position. Seattle ( talk) 18:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Closing as Delist --
Pres
N
19:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
reply
The list was removed by Pres N 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC) [3]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list removal because of a complete lack of citations. Recently we demoted all the individual provinces featured list as they all had the same issue, being nominated in 2006. On those pages I informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums but no one had the time or interest to update the citations. It is also written in a style no longer used. For example "This article provides a summary of...", "For federal by-elections... see List of federal by-elections in Canada. For the eight general elections of the Province of Canada held in 1843 to 1864 before confederation in 1867, see List of elections in the Province of Canada." All found in the lead which seems to end by 1993. Mattximus ( talk) 01:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Closing as Delist -- Pres N 19:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Pres N 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [4]. reply
Promoted in 2007, this has very similar issues to the other "List of birds of.." FLRCs below. Some of the primary issues are:
Unfortunately, no lists have been promoted to FL status in the last couple of years that I can point to as an example of how to model this article, but I personally feel that it is clear that this is a long way from our current FL criteria. Harrias talk 09:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Closing as delist - between the discussion here and at List of birds of Belize over the past four weeks, it seems clear that these lists are not up to snuff and aren't being fixed. -- Pres N 19:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Pres N 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [5]. reply
Promoted in 2005, this list shows its age. "This list of birds of Oklahoma includes.." gives you an idea of the problems to come.
Unfortunately, no lists have been promoted to FL status in the last couple of years that I can point to as an example of how to model this article, but I personally feel that it is clear that this is a long way from our current FL criteria. Harrias talk 09:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Harrias: several of these old lists are deficient by current standards with vague and inadequate referencing and poor introductions. I hesitate to suggest my own List of birds of Thailand as a model, but it's better than the article at issue. I'd defeature if it's not fixed (I won't do it) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Closing as delist - between the discussion here and at List of birds of Belize over the past four weeks, it seems clear that these lists are not up to snuff and aren't being fixed. -- Pres N 19:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Pres N 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [6]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list removal for failing points one two, four, and 5(a) of the featured list criteria:
I'm watching this page now. I'm not wedded to the family introductory text, although it does no harm. I don't think that it's likely that such basic info will be referenced, so if it's being challenged it might as well go. I can't see the point of abandoning the current form and losing content, when all that is gained is dubious sortability. The only logical order for a country list is taxonomic, and if you are looking for a particular specie, well that's why the ToC's there. The IUCN is less relevant than the status within the country; for example Pied-billed Grebe may well be least concern globally, but your mock-up gives no idea of its status in Belize. In the UK it's a very rare vagrant, and just to have the IUCN tag would be highly misleading.
Closing as delist - between the discussion here and at the other bird FLRCs over the past four weeks, it seems clear that these lists are not up to snuff and aren't being fixed. -- Pres N 19:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply