Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Roman Catholic archbishops of Montreal/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 promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC).

List of Roman Catholic archbishops of Montreal

 * Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other lists I have successfully nominated to FL (e.g. bishops of Hong Kong, archbishops of Vancouver, Toronto, and Quebec), and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Solid article. I do have a question though: should the dates be in dmy format since it's French Canada? ~ HAL  333  16:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * in these cases, I would think the language of an article would be the deciding factor, as opposed to its location (e.g. appropriate to use dmy for the Vancouver article in French). mdy is the prevalent format for English-speaking Canadians. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:TIES says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation", which I take to also cover things like date formats. The same section specifically references the use of Canadian English for an article on a Canadian topic.  I would therefore say that this article should use the standard variety of English used in Canada as a whole (including date formats), on the grounds that (to the best of my knowledge) "French-Canadian English" isn't a thing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to know. ~ HAL  333  19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

if you are of the opinion that this nom is close to passing, could I please trouble one of you to give this a dedicated source review? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Great work. 0qd (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – something of a rarity for me, in that I can't find anything to nitpick. You're getting altogether too good at this... Harrias  talk 15:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references look good, and the link-checker tool shows no issues, which isn't a surprise since all of the links are archived. Everything appears fine on the sourcing front. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 23:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.