Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Archbishop of Dublin/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 not promoted by TBrandley 01:51, 30 September 2012.

Archbishop of Dublin

 * Major contriubtor: User:Chrisdoyleorwell Nominator(s): Lucky102 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this article meets the Featured list criteria. There are not many lists relating to Ireland or Christianity, 3 for Ireland and 20 for Christianity that are featured, but this one deserves to. There are not many Archbishops without a link. It would be nice for it to be featured. Lucky102 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead is too short
 * Diocese of Dublin is a dab link, as is OFM.
 * Captions to pictures and notes should not have full stops unless they are a full sentence; where they are a full sentence, there should be a full stop
 * Most of the history section is unreferenced
 * "After the Reformation, there are apostolic successions of Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic archbishops." is poor grammar
 * Don't use ; to create subheadings because of WP:ACCESS issues. There's no need for those subheadings anyway if that's all that you can say about those topics (and is that really all you can say?)
 * Why are some names in bold and others not? No explanation given
 * Why are some names in italics?
 * Why don't we have stubs or redlinks for the missing archbishops?
 * "See also" section should not repeat links from higher up the page
 * Reference access dates are a mixture of formats (DMY and YYYY-MM-DD)
 * I'm no expert on the accessibility issues involved with table formatting, but I don't believe that the tables are up to current standards - no  or   to be seen.
 * I've not really started on the notes but I can see problems with overlinking for one.

All in all, it's an oppose from me. I see that you've never edited the list and checked before nominating with someone who has only a few minor edits to the list rather than with anyone with greater familiarity with the subject or the list. Do you have access to the sources, in fact? BencherliteTalk 22:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per above. Nominator, please read WP:FL? carefully. If you are not a major editor, then you should ask the main contributors whether you can nominate it here. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked the second most active contributor and he said yes. The first one is not active.--Lucky102 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I'm not sure this article qualifies as a list. I would be inclined to develop it as an article instead. NapHit (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.