Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Narnian timeline/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by User:Sephiroth BCR 23:05, 3 November 2008 [1].

Narnian timeline

Notified: WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force, Fbv65edel.

This article came to my attention thanks to our handy cleanup listing. It is an older FL and lacks in-line citations and has several unsourced statements. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses Harvard Style inline citation. LloydSommerer (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It does? I might be missing something, but I don't see any inline citations. I see three references at the bottom, that's it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no inline citations at all, let alone in Harvard style. Majorly ^talk 21:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, there are two in the first paragraph of the lead, but that's nowhere near enough. The main table needs citations and there are still unsourced statements. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Lacks citations and has various maintenance tags. Majorly ^talk 21:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are issues that need to be addressed. There are large sections of text that have been recently added that are unsourced and probably need to be removed. I don't think the text in the timeline itself needs to be sourced. It is all from the published timeline. There is only one source for this information. But notice that the citations are from published experts in the field and not from the original source material. LloydSommerer (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are supposed to wait until AFTER the issues are addressed before voting keep. The point of FLRC is to improve issues in lists, and since you admit there are serious issues, you should wait until after they are fixed before deciding it should be kept. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry about that. LloydSommerer (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What if the cleanup doesn't happen? Will you return to change your !vote to "Remove"? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I went ahead and did the cleanup and have changed my vote to a keep LloydSommerer (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - lack of sources, maintenance tag. Mainly because of the lack of sources. iMatthew (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is actually about a single source of information. It is cited once in the lead. Due to the addition of other material this was no longer obvious. That should no longer be the case. LloydSommerer (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Citing in the lead is weird. I'd prefer Harvard-style citations rather than the present MLA-esque citations. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – can you include a brief overview of the plot of the Narnia series in the lead? Some context for the reader probably is good. The citation style in the lead needs to be changed to Harvard style or another suitable style, as MLA-esque citing is generally not good. Furthermore, it is unclear what the references are for. Are they simply for the lead, or are you citing the items in the timeline with them? As it stands, it appears as if the timeline is completely unsourced. Making clear where the source is coming from is necessary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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