Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Archbishop of Dublin/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by TBrandley 01:51, 30 September 2012 [1].
Archbishop of Dublin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Major contriubtor: User:Chrisdoyleorwell Nominator(s): Lucky102 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this article meets the Featured list criteria. There are not many lists relating to Ireland or Christianity, 3 for Ireland and 20 for Christianity that are featured, but this one deserves to. There are not many Archbishops without a link. It would be nice for it to be featured. Lucky102 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead is too short
- Diocese of Dublin is a dab link, as is OFM.
- Captions to pictures and notes should not have full stops unless they are a full sentence; where they are a full sentence, there should be a full stop
- Most of the history section is unreferenced
- "After the Reformation, there are apostolic successions of Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic archbishops." is poor grammar
- Don't use ; to create subheadings because of WP:ACCESS issues. There's no need for those subheadings anyway if that's all that you can say about those topics (and is that really all you can say?)
- Why are some names in bold and others not? No explanation given
- Why are some names in italics?
- Why don't we have stubs or redlinks for the missing archbishops?
- "See also" section should not repeat links from higher up the page
- Reference access dates are a mixture of formats (DMY and YYYY-MM-DD)
- I'm no expert on the accessibility issues involved with table formatting, but I don't believe that the tables are up to current standards - no
scope="col"orscope="row"to be seen. - I've not really started on the notes but I can see problems with overlinking for one.
All in all, it's an oppose from me. I see that you've never edited the list and checked before nominating with someone who has only a few minor edits to the list rather than with anyone with greater familiarity with the subject or the list. Do you have access to the sources, in fact? BencherliteTalk 22:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as per above. Nominator, please read WP:FL? carefully. If you are not a major editor, then you should ask the main contributors whether you can nominate it here. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked the second most active contributor and he said yes. The first one is not active.--Lucky102 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure this article qualifies as a list. I would be inclined to develop it as an article instead. NapHit (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.