Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of birds of Cuba/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 The Rambling Man 19:03, 6 September 2010 [1].
List of birds of Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: User:Yomangani, WikiProject Birds
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has no inline references. Snek01 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the least of its problems. With its two references is there really any problem with ascertaining where the information came from? Inline citations where appropriate, likely to be challenged, blah blah. Yomanganitalk 23:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist
CommentThe information in the body of the article is covered by the general references given at the bottom of the article, so inline citations would probably be redundant. That said, what makes those two sources reliable? Also, the lead needs to be beefed up a bit (have a look at recently promoted bird lists). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to delist, no attempt made to address my comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dabomb's comments above still remain unanswered. The lead is really in a poor state right now.--Cheetah (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm leaning towards delist unless someone can convince me of the reliability of the sources. Everything else, like the skinny lead, can be addressed fairly easily without the need for delisting, but reliability of sources is a pretty fundamental issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per comment by User:HJ Mitchell above. --Snek01 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. The first source might be okay if we can find anything noting it (I'll take a look) but that second source to me does not look reliable. 50% doesn't cut it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:38, 29 August 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.