Per WP:WIAFL, not well-constructed.
I'm sorry but this categorization doesn't really make sense. While there are currently no guidelines about categorical lists, I feel common sense would lend itself. There is no coherency between topics. "Edible oils" is defined by a property of the oil, whereas "Oils used for biofuel" is defined by a usage. Much better to stick to one, and make "Oils used in food" or maybe "Culinary oils" or somesuch (much better than an "Inedible oils" section). Also, in almost every section it is unclear what the criteria for inclusion are.
The list would be a lot more usable if it were consistent in it's criteria. Suggested format -
etc.
Again, the "Other oils" section doesn't belong. Just glancing I can see separations by usage in cosmetics, medicine, and insecticides.
As a sidenote, the repetition within titles is unnecessary. All items on the list should be "oils", all items in "biofuels" should be biofuels, etc. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
So instead of -
better -
~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Can I suggest you withdraw this nom for now? Make these comments on the article talk-page and drop a friendly note to the major contributor(s) to the list. Using FLRC to criticise (constructively, I hope) and suggest improvements, is not likely to lead to harmonious editing. It takes a lot of effort to create a featured list. That shouldn't be discarded lightly—for example, because you have some ideas on how it might be better constructed. FLRC should be used as a last resort, when other means of fixing or improving an existing FL have failed. Colin° Talk 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment The idea of trying to hash this out on the talk page does sound good to me. As for the merits of the suggestions:
Summary: hope we keep our eye on the ball of how to improve this article. There's not much point in getting into a battle about complaining about the list or defending it, but there is every reason to list problems if there is some chance this will lead to fixing them. Kingdon 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Disclaimer: I'm the person who wrote the article, nominated it for FL, and have maintained it since. A few responses:
This article has been practically left to rot since its promotion, and needs to undergo a review, which shows that it fails the following criteria:
Circeus 02:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Per WP:WIAFL, not well-constructed.
I'm sorry but this categorization doesn't really make sense. While there are currently no guidelines about categorical lists, I feel common sense would lend itself. There is no coherency between topics. "Edible oils" is defined by a property of the oil, whereas "Oils used for biofuel" is defined by a usage. Much better to stick to one, and make "Oils used in food" or maybe "Culinary oils" or somesuch (much better than an "Inedible oils" section). Also, in almost every section it is unclear what the criteria for inclusion are.
The list would be a lot more usable if it were consistent in it's criteria. Suggested format -
etc.
Again, the "Other oils" section doesn't belong. Just glancing I can see separations by usage in cosmetics, medicine, and insecticides.
As a sidenote, the repetition within titles is unnecessary. All items on the list should be "oils", all items in "biofuels" should be biofuels, etc. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
So instead of -
better -
~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Can I suggest you withdraw this nom for now? Make these comments on the article talk-page and drop a friendly note to the major contributor(s) to the list. Using FLRC to criticise (constructively, I hope) and suggest improvements, is not likely to lead to harmonious editing. It takes a lot of effort to create a featured list. That shouldn't be discarded lightly—for example, because you have some ideas on how it might be better constructed. FLRC should be used as a last resort, when other means of fixing or improving an existing FL have failed. Colin° Talk 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment The idea of trying to hash this out on the talk page does sound good to me. As for the merits of the suggestions:
Summary: hope we keep our eye on the ball of how to improve this article. There's not much point in getting into a battle about complaining about the list or defending it, but there is every reason to list problems if there is some chance this will lead to fixing them. Kingdon 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Disclaimer: I'm the person who wrote the article, nominated it for FL, and have maintained it since. A few responses:
This article has been practically left to rot since its promotion, and needs to undergo a review, which shows that it fails the following criteria:
Circeus 02:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply