Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of florilegia and botanical codices/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:Matthewedwards 15:52, 25 October 2008.

List of florilegia and botanical codices
The list contains important information and is very pleasing esthetically. It might suffer improvement if in addition the list would be sorted by author. Tusbra (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * There is no lead
 * Sections should be level 2 (==)
 * Some items do not have references

Gary King ( talk ) 02:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick-fail This article needs significant work. It does not have a lead and is little more than a list of links. The list does not follow style guidelines (i.e. headings, en dashes in year ranges) and has a dearth of references. The references that are present need to be formatted. Sorry to be blunt, but this list is nowhere near Featured standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick-Fail -
 * No lead per WP:LEDE.
 * No sections.
 * References are not in cite template.
 * Many red links.
 * Not everything is not verified with a reliable source.-- S R X  15:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose All references need to be formatted correctly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick-fail, please. Premature nomination shouldn't be bloating our list of nominations. Appears to be a wishlist of new articles—see the plethora of ungainly red links. Tony   (talk)  03:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.