Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of hydroelectric power stations/archive2

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 The Rambling Man 18:56, 1 March 2010 [1].

List of hydroelectric power stations

Nominator(s): Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because: I believe this list now meets all points in the FL criteria, (See also: First nomination). Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - there cannot and should not be any "citation needed" tags in featured content. All of these absolutely must be dealt with before promotion. There are also a lot of primary sources, which aren't great; secondary sources are preferred per WP:RS and WP:V. Concern with the lead sentence from the last FLC was also not dealt with. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below. Thanks. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose / quick fail per KV5: you nominated a list with 27 "citation needed" tags and still think that the list meets all FL criteria? Seriously? Sorry, FLC is not peer review, nor will FLC reviewers find sources for you. (OK, it's not peer review, but you need to (a) complete the references, not just give the webpage title (you need publisher, date, accessdate, format if pdf, etc); (b) make the notes column unsortable, and probably rename it "References" if you're only using it for refs not notes; (c) complete the location column, some are missing; (d) explain why 1,000MW is an appropriate cut-off; (e) cite sentences in the lead that aren't drawn from the table; (f) re-read for basic grammar errors (I've fixed a few that I saw); (g) don't link "MW" more than once in the lead, and explain what it stands for at some stage e.g. "larger than 1,000 megawatts (MW)"; (h) add alt text to the images.) Bencherlite ^Talk 17:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Sorry for wasting your time, again. A quick closure is a good idea. I'll dedicate more time on this (and other lists) before posting another nomination. Regards to all. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This list is pretty far from ready, most notably as a result of the multiple {{cn}} tags. The two reviewers above have provided a set of comments, all of which should be acted upon before this list is renominated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.