Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of cultural references in The Cantos/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Dabomb87 16:12, 30 June 2009 [1].
List of cultural references in The Cantos[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified Filiocht, Vathek, and Wikiprojects Popular Culture and Poetry
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails 3.b, requirements for stand-alone lists to meet general article requirements of verifiability (there are no inline citations in the article) and, less pressingly, criterion 1, because it needs a thorough copyedit for punctuation standardization. Gimme danger (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does this not meet 3b? Geraldk (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my perhaps faulty logic, 3b requires that a featured list "meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists". When I follow the link to discover what those requirements are, I immediately discover that "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability." Since this article does not have any inline citations, any claim within it cannot be verified, hence it doesn't meet general content policies, hence it doesn't meet stand alone list requirements, hence it doesn't meet 3.b.
- I'm not particularly familiar with FL criteria, so I don't really know how you all would prefer to classify this case. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit of a stretch. 3b is intended more to prevent content forking and the creation of stubby lists. I think the 1 stuff and lack of citation is a more fair criticism. Geraldk (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I wanted to use the hip lingo, I guess, and thought that "this doesn't look like the professional, sourced material that featured content ought to look like" wouldn't sound too good. And you totally caught me. Should I rewrite/resubmit this nomination? --Gimme danger (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit of a stretch. 3b is intended more to prevent content forking and the creation of stubby lists. I think the 1 stuff and lack of citation is a more fair criticism. Geraldk (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Statements such as "The most striking feature of the text, to a casual browser, is the inclusion of Chinese characters as well as quotations in European languages other than English" sound like original research, while "It is a book-length work, widely considered to present formidable difficulties to the reader" needs a source. Complete lack of inline citations keep this from being featured list material. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist unless a lot of work is done on it. Better, I think, to renovate and resubmit to the rigours of FLC. Please make the hyphen/en dashes consistent as list interrupters. "etc." is not appropriate in a formal register ("such as"?). Do we need the bold face in the list? It gives a messy look. Citations missing (e.g. Pound's ABC of Reading? Page number?). Good luck. Tony (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.