Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of regicides of Charles I/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 removed by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of regicides of Charles I edit
List of regicides of Charles I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: WikiProject Biography
This article sadly no longer reflects an article of good standing. Problems include, but are not limited to:
- Addition of large-scale unsupported information (much of the "Others exempted" section)
- Terrible formatting on the "Scottish Act of indemnity and oblivion" table (even the title has been poorly done)
- Inconsistent citations in the notes section
- Inconsistent citations in the lede
There were problems of WP:OWNership shortly after the list went through its FLC, and I see no point in trying to rescue this from someone who has stated that the featured process "is of little interest to me as I believe the process is broken in many ways". - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to agree, but there's also been zero discussion on the talk page to try to resolve this. Now, I'm just as familiar as anyone with the idea of giving up because you know what kind of people you're dealing with, but ... I dunno, it just seems weird to me to recommend a removal without at least token discussion on the front. Could the formatting be cleaned up, the inconsistencies be addressed? Yes. But, on the other hand, those issues pervade the article, not just the new list. I'm not well-enough versed in this to know if the new information is worthy or not, so... a spiritual Agree on my part. At least someone should care. --Golbez (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's such an interesting list, are you sure that the citations and table cannot be brought back up to standard? Is anyone working on this article? Mattximus (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. The problems with this list are fixable. But no one is willing to fix them, which is frustrating for everyone involved. Delisting. --PresN 02:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.