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

Featured list candidates/Archbishop of Dublin/archive1

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" or scope="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? Bencherlite ^Talk 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.