Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Islam by country

Islam by country
Detailed and verified information about the population of Muslims has been gathered in several tables which describes the issue perfectly. I think this article meets WP:WIAFL.-- Seyyed(t-c) 13:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Lead is poorly worded and formatted, and could probably more prose. "Note" is an inappropriate warning to put. Islam is not even linked!
 * Incomplete: Missing all countries in Micronesia and most in Polynesia
 * External links as reference in the body of the article are unacceptable.
 * Why not just link directly to "islam in"?
 * There should really be something about the state religion status of Islam in many countries.
 * Circeus 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of the refs are not properly formatted and I don't particularily like the colour of the table... -- Scorpion0422 22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Lead is too short and does not meet WP:LEAD standards. "Listing of Muslims by country" is not a complete sentence. "Important note" should be removed. There should also be general information about Islam, not just statements about how measuring can be biased. This kind of information would be more appropriate in section headings, not in the lead.
 * All external jumps in the tables need to be removed. These should be converted into references/notes.
 * Why is region listed before country? The list measures by country, not by region. There is also overlinking in the region column, each region need only be wikilinked once.
 * Per Circeus, rather than linking individual country statistics in "(details)", it might be more appropriate to directly link each country name.
 * Why do some countries have three links external links, while others have none? These percentages fall under the "statistics" category, which should be cited per WP:WHEN.
 * The titles "Islam by Country" and "Top 60", found directly above the tables, are redundant. The sections are already titled, the tables do not need to have separate titles as well.
 * The heading of the "Top 60" is poorly worded and confusing. In addition, "Top 60" is a pretty poor title choice, at least IMO.
 * Rather than stating "Note:", consider using asterisked notes or references.
 * Formatting of the four notes is inconsistent (Note 3 does not even have any text), and formatting in the references section needs to improve. Rai - me  01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Sort on "% Muslim" and "Muslim total" columns do not always work when used repeatedly to obtain ascending and descending order. Hmains 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to citations in lead section. [4], not [4]. Miranda 02:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)