Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2002 FIFA World Cup/archive1

2002 FIFA World Cup, and every FIFA World Cup prior to it
Nomination retracted I'm not even into football but these lists are amazingly well done. There might be a few consistancy problems and the external links might need to be turned into refferences, but I don't think it should take much effort at all to smooth out any wrinkles they might have. While I only put the tag for the 2002 cup, this nomination is actually for all 17 articles as they are all in the same format and are all very well done. --SeizureDog 09:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the bulk approach is going to work here. Please list all 17 article individually (not at once, of course). They need to be considered individually. It's not Featured topics. Renata 13:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I certainly don't see the need to waste effort in reviewing them 18 seperate times. As I see it, it might take, say, a week to review all of one list completely, put then we can just have the same logic apply to the rest and review them in about an hour each. --SeizureDog 13:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Renata, list them individually. Why such hurry? Let the community review them one by one, of course you may list them all at the same time, if you do it properly (not this way), but don't forget you need 4 supports to promote an article, so, you should give people time to analyze each article. What do you think? Afonso Silva 13:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The nomination process takes about 2 weeks. That's 9 months if they go through one at a time. It's not that I'm in a hurry, but nobody wants to wait THAT long. I'm find with focusing on reviewing one article as long as it means the process for the following related articles would take less time or could be mass done. That's assuming they pass of course. If it fails they all fail so it quickens things there as well.--SeizureDog 14:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In any case, all those articles should go through FAC in my opinion. Most of those articles could be expanded greatly. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 11:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They seem kinda in the middle. While they could have information as an article perhaps, they are very listy by nature from all of that play statistics. I don't think there's any way they'd let it go as an article. It feels more like a list to me. --SeizureDog 11:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, these articles could be expanded a lot so I prefer if we move the detailed statistics and calendars to titles like 2006 FIFA World Cup calendar or 2006 FIFA World Cup matches or 2006 FIFA World Cup statistics and keep the current titles just for text and information. CG 12:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This proposal is quite sensible. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 17:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Renata 17:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. Nomination retracted on grounds that it's only a semi-list :P --SeizureDog 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Just from checking a couple, it seems 1954 and 1958 are not even finished yet (all scorers and match info, as in most of the others are not done) AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)