Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Wisconsin numbered highways/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 User:Hahc21 01:14, 19 March 2014.

List of Wisconsin numbered highways


I am nominating this for featured list because there are none for all the highways of a whole state and I think that I have managed to achieve a list to meet the criteria. I have taken the old list, added a sortable table and references, images, and expanded the lead. I request that the shields are left on for the termini of the Interstate and U.S. route lists, but I have taken them out of the state highway list because they were using too much expensive parser function calls. I think that the list as it stands now is suitable for FL consideration.  Rcsprinter123    (constabulary)  @ 20:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Almost entirely sourced to self-published sources. No legend for the colors. Why the differences in precision for the lengths? Table should also be using routelist row. --Rschen7754 21:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the other road featured lists use routelist row. What colours are you talking about?  Rcsprinter123    (cackle)  @ 21:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, those featured lists passed several years ago, so we shouldn't be using those as an example for anything. As far as the colors, we have no legend to indicate what the shading in the tables means. Finally, you have not addressed the SPS issues, or the precision issues. I'm sorry, but these issues should have been resolved before FLC, not during the nomination. --Rschen7754 21:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It does say "Any rows shaded gray have been decommissioned." I will look for better sources and more precise lengths.  Rcsprinter123    (gimme a message)  @ 21:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as Rschen7754 articulated. Sorry, but much work needs to be done, and ideally, we should be using the first such nomination of this type of list in several years to test WP:USRD/STDS/L with which this does not comply.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Once I got the page to load, I did not see something that I can say is the very best Wikipedia has to offer.  Here are a few things that troubled me:
 * Extremely short lead (fails criterion 2)
 * Inconsistent use of . Why do the top two tables use it in the middle columns but the bottom table does not?
 * Random references above the tables, to SPSs no less!
 * Little to no explanation of abbreviations
 * Date formats are a jumbled mess
 * With all this and what was said above, I cannot support. –Fredddie™ 22:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine, I withdraw. Seems the standard is higher than I thought.  Rcsprinter123    (post)  @ 23:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.