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 kept by The Rambling Man 17:56, 14 November 2012 [1].

Notified: WikiProject Anime and manga

I am nominating this for featured list removal because there are several issues currently preventing it from being Wikipedia's finest work. A quick review revealed the following:

• Eight [citation needed] tags. The page is delistable on this issue alone.
• One dab link (Peter Cohen whose name is written Peter, Cohen for some reason).
• I can't check all refs but certainly ref 22 leads to a search engine, nothing directly usable in this list, ref 23 links to a homepage of some site so can't be used to reference the info in this list.
• EP# -> Episode number.
• Can't see the table's meeting WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes.
• There are TBAs which have been then for several years, can't they be resolved?
• WP:DASH issues in the ref titles.
• Lead is weak, it needs copyediting (e.g. what does "by the fourteen company .." mean?) and ought to at least introduce the reader to an overview of what Trinity Blood is all about.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, no longer meets requirements. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per the concerns by DragonZero. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, but not just yet. I've put some work into this since the nomination. The only thing I'm struggling with is the sources. Unfortunately, the European retailer's online shop has been offline for some sort of major upgrade over the past week or so and does not yet seem to be fully operational again. Goodraise 14:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Still working on it. Proved to be more work than I anticipated, but I think I can manage it within a reasonable amount of time. Goodraise 21:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• All issues raised have been addressed. Goodraise 12:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the work done to address the issues above. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it meets criteria now. Good work! TBrandley 05:07, 16 October 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.

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 kept by Giants2008 19:32, 4 November 2012 [2].

Notified: WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... The list doesn't feature a professional standard of prose. What are "other appearances" referring to? And what is "which reached the top-five position" supposed to mean? The tense jumps from past to present and back to past, and there are spelling errors such as "later" instead of "latter". More awkward prose comes in the form of "to launch her career", "Rihanna lent her vocals on some guest singles" and "In the United States it was certified quintuple platinum for selling more than 5 million digital copies". Also, "The album earned Rihanna platinum certification in the United States"; how on earth can an album award a person a certification? These are just a few examples. The article looks like it has been written by an over-zealous fan, with WP:PEACOCK words such as "making her just the seventh artist to earn this plateau" and "...which featured American rapper Jay-Z became massive commercial success" (which is, again, incorrect grammar). I am, quite frankly, embarrassed to see this with the bronze star. By the way, all the WP:FANCRUFT crap in the first paragraph of the lead is utter nonsense for a discography page. Look at any other FL discography page and you will notice that none of these have such information. Some references are also dead, others are missing publishers etc. and many are just bare URLs. This should be delisted ASAP as an embarrassment to the project. Also, why on earth is the Flanders region of Belgium included in the tables? The page also is not stable, jumping from different album titles for the most recent album and sales for Loud constantly changing on a regular basis. The lead also has nowhere near the required amount of referencing. Till 16:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now meets the criteria NapHit (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Pretty important points but does not look like something that cannot be resolved quickly, unlike this. Any of the regular users willing to help? Else I would say Delist. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist until many concerns are addressed. It is possible for them to be fixed, as said by IndianBio, by until this happens I vote to delist. If these concerns are addressed, I'll strike my delist. TBrandley 19:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it appears that the issues with the articles have been fixed (or atleast most of them have). The article seems in pretty good condition, no reason to delist. Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I resolved some of the issues and thanks to Eternal he also finished the most of them too. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 11:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The issues were resolved, so no reason to delist. VítoR™  • (D) 12:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per improvements. Zac (talk · contribs) 17:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per improvments. Et3rnal 18:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• How on earth have the issues been resolved? The prose is pretty much the same. An example: "It became a worldwide success, peaking at number one in more than twenty countries including the Billboard Hot 100, where it stayed at number-one for ten weeks, becoming the longest-running number-one single of her career, in the United States." Many of the sentences are incomprehensible and the lead still does not have the required amount of referencing. And again, why is Belgium included in the charts? Till 01:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Belgium is amazing and you will deal! (And any chart can be included if damn well fit.) Why don't you, instead of bitching about it, fix the issues that remain (according to you) yourself? Zac (talk · contribs) 05:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I don't have to. Till 05:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per improvements made to the list. TBrandley 18:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now looks fine to me - the lead now reads as well as you would expect it to. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, it's far from perfect, but it's adequate right now I think to weak keep. In two minutes I spotted three prose issues in the lead, but I don't have time now to do a full copyedit. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 1 November 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.

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 kept by The Rambling Man 18:23, 1 November 2012 [3].

Notified: Raime, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's somewhat showing its age. Worse, it is riddled with mistakes. Several things need to be fixed, including:

• The intro "This list...."
• Dead links.
• Bare URLs in the refs
• Incorrect sorting in the tables (per rank).
• Tables do not meet WP:ACCESS per row and col scopes.
• Inconsistent text ("This building was topped out " vs "This building topped out" vs "This building is Topped" etc)
• Obvious errors (e.g. how can there be only one 6=? How can two buildings of different heights both be the 17th tallest buildings in the world? Or two of different heights be the 21st tallest? There are MANY of these...)
• Inadequate referencing (e.g. where is "Emirates Park Towers Hotel & Spa" referenced?)
• Inconsistent slash spacing.
• Conversion inconsistencies (294 / 965 vs 294 / 964)
• Several buildings missing their "Use".

That's just from the first table... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will try to address all of these problems as soon as possible. I've been trying to go through all of the older FL tallest building lists to update and improve them, but unfortunately I have not yet gotten a chance to work on this one and it seems like it is significantly more outdated than others. Cheers, Rai•me 15:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raime, it looks like you've done quite a bit of work on this list. Can you update us on if you feel you've addressed all of TRM's comments, or whether you're still working on them? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list should now meet the criteria. Addressing TRM's concerns, I rewrote the lead, fixed all bare URLs, made some formatting tweaks to the tables, rewrote/fixed/removed the inconsistent text in the "Notes" columns for all tables, fixed all ranking/sorting/spacing errors, removed the outdated "Use" column, and added references where needed. The one remaining issue left is reformatting all tables per WP:ACCESS - I reformatted the columns appropriately, but am just a little confused as to what more is required to meet the guideline. Does every row need to be formatted with ! scope="row" even if there are no row headers?

Also, if there are any more errors please point them out - I'd be happy to address them. I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get to all of these, but I have had a very busy three weeks and had only limited time to work on the list. Unfortunately, all of the other editors I worked with to get the list promoted in the first place seem to have left Wikipedia. Cheers, Rai•me 18:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a lot happier with the list now, great work Raime. I'd like to hear from some other reviewers, but it's in much better shape than when I nominated it. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 17 October 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.

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 Giants2008 18:30, 21 November 2012 [4].

Notified: RhinoSpear79

The major easy-to-spot issues:

• "This is a list..."
• Non-compliance with WP:ACCESS per:
  • MOS:DTT
  • Colours being used without symbols.
• Raw URLs being used.
• Don't start sentences with a number.
• All the notes under the table are unreferenced.
• The whole of the lead is unreferenced.
• Incorrect use of bold per WP:BADEMPHASIS.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist woefully outdated, no inline citations in lead, not clear what is referencing the table, which fails MOS:DTT. NapHit (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delist. Yikes. Look at those references. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how hard/easy it would be to find appropriate references for the lead, but delist until it has some. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist outdated, table doesn't meet WP:ACCESS or WP:DTT, rare references even, avoid bold links per WP:BADEMPHASIS, per WP:MOS, don't use "This is a list" please, as said above. TBrandley 22:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I won't declare a position so that I can close the FLRC if need be, but this is in really rough shape. I can't add much to what has been pointed out already, and a lot of editing is needed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Lamb, D. and McGrane, B. (1964) 75 Years with the Fighting Hawkeyes. WM. C. Brown Company" would be a very useful ref for this list. Sadly, google Books does not offer a preview. Buggie111 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 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.

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 Giants2008 19:20, 4 November 2012 [5].

Notified: WikiProject Television

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's outdated, and contains numerous dead links, and bare URLS.

• Firstly, remove "(TV series)" from the page title
• Use {{DISPLAYTITLE}} for the title
• Outdated information
• Dead links and numerous bare URLs
• "List of Dexter awards and nominations" → "List of awards and nominations received by Dexter"
• "Awards & Nominations" → "Awards and nominations", as per MOS:CAPS
• Image doesn't seem right
• Dexter is an American drama series that has aired on Showtime since October 1, 2006 → Dexter is an American television drama that premiered on Showtime on October 1, 2006
• Tables don't meet MOS:DTT, add scope rows and cols as well as table captions to be sure
• "^2009 "Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series" Nominees" don't bold it, per WP:CONTEXTLINK
• Don't have access dates or use {{cite web}} for any external links
• Cleanup

TBrandley 01:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Tables fail MOS:DTT, information outdated and numerous dead links. NapHit (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist too many issues, tagged with two maintenance banners, not close to something we'd expect to be our "finest work". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 1 November 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.