Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/January 2009

Delisted

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 10:35, 7 January 2009 [1].

---

List of Sweden international footballers

Notified: Johan Elisson, ArtVandelay13, WP Footy, WP SWEDEN.

Fails Cr. 1, 2, 3 and maybe 6. Let's go down the failed criteria in more detail:

1. Prose Not much to say here as there is hardly any prose at all, but what is there is hardly professional; the first sentence is rather fragmented and doesn't flow, and last sentence is very vague and is not even a sentence.
2. Lead The most pressing issue, the lead doesn't provide any context or background at all. Compare to List of Germany international footballers, which is a recently promoted Featured list. It simple needs more expansion. In addition, FLs no longer start "This is a list of...".
3. Comprehensiveness Once again, compare to the German footballer list. There is no context or background at all. I think the table is rather underused in terms of useful information.

6. Visual appeal The key is not in a place that is helpful to readers. Color accompanied with symbols would help.

• Needs inline citations also, and has a bit of POV language (the caption: "Henrik Larsson, one of the most prominent goalscorers", "Fredrik Ljungberg, the current captain, is one of the most important players of the national team").

In sum, this list needs a lot of work to meet current standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delist fails the featured list criteria, need better lead—Chris! _ct 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I feel that the net needs widening on this list; the threshold of 50 caps or 25 goals is too high to be comprehensive. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I sort of agree. What would the list look like if it were lowered to, say, 40 caps or 20 goals? matt91486 (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not make it like the German list (20 or more caps, 10 or more goals)? Please note that there are other pressing problems to fix; the lead needs a major expansion and the table needs inline citations added. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the scope of the issue of comprehensiveness as well. matt91486 (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I won't have the time to fix this until the winter break, can we freeze the closing of the FLRC until then (like a month from now)? I do have the necessary sources to make it as comprehensive as the German list, just not the time at the moment. – Elisson • T • C • 16:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as the progress is being made, or will be made in the near future, the FLRC directors will let this run for a while. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'll comment here again when I've started the rewrite. – Elisson • T • C • 00:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, a month is a bit too much for my tastes. It be one thing if it was two weeks or so, but if you can't work on the list for a month, I'd rather delist it and have it go through FLC after the cleanup is done. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, alright then. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR normally takes a good four to six weeks before delisting occurs, and that's if nothing is done at all. If the work is going to be done, then delisting and resubmitting strikes me as process for process' sake. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have the same feelings, but at the same time, bringing the list up to standards is easier to do when there is no deadline. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

FAR is tackling a completely different beast. It's much more difficult to bring a featured article back up to par than a featured list, hence why FAR (4-6 weeks minimum) goes on way longer than FLR (2 weeks minimum). Trying to compare the two when they're evaluating two very different types of content doesn't work. Honestly, if the FLR process was changed to a one week minimum, it wouldn't make a big difference in terms of the ratio to lists kept to lists removed. In any case, given that this list needs a complete rewrite to get back to FL quality, I'm more inclined to have it go through FLC to be fully evaluated by the FLC regulars than see it squeak by in a FLRC. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Johan Elisson/sandbox12. Now please give me a few more weeks. – Elisson • T • C • 18:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delist - does not fulfill the FL Criteria.--SRX 16:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment As Johan Elisson requested, this FLRC has been open "a few more weeks" than usual. If attempts to address the issues are not made within the next three days, I will vote to "delist" the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted him here, so barring significant improvements, I'll likely delist this the following week (too busy Sunday for the Chargers-Colts game!). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

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