Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of most wealthy historical figures/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:Scorpion0422 05:15, 12 August 2008.

List of most wealthy historical figures
I'm nominating this list for the featured list category because it provides excellent historical information backed up by concrete sources that's not available anywhere else on the web. The article also has a good number of images and provides excellent historical data. Please provide your support and opinions freely. Thank you! --Bugnot (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

-- Scorpion0422 23:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still needs a lot of work. Some of the more notable things:
 * Inadequate lead.
 * Poorly formatted table.
 * Very few sources, which include several wikipedia pages, which is a huge no-no.
 * What is the purpose of the Poem about Rockefeller's life?
 * If the main source is this list, then the rest of the table is original research because that list only includes Americans.
 * Oppose in addition to above:
 * Standardization: Why are some 'company' and some 'main source', and sometimes 'company' is used when no company is actually there? (A monarchy, for example)
 * Really poorly formatted; not really tabular at all. Many of these can be made into columns. In the process, you would change the image format from thumbnails to portraits.
 * The notable mentions - ExxonMobil is just that, a company, and not a person, and has no business being mentioned here. If we're going to mention companies, then, on a list including monarchs, are you also going to include the richest countries?
 * The Fuggers. Your source for this is the talk page. Absolutely unacceptable. Likewise, two other refs are links to Wikipedia; again, unacceptable.
 * Finally, the complaint on the talk page, while poorly made, is valid - "wealthiest" is the proper form, not "most wealthy".
 * That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this because it was first nominated on the FAC. I was pretty surprised that Croesus (who could very well be the richest man who ever lived and whose name is literally synonymous with wealth) wasn't on the list. Admittedly, the list does say that "their wealth is hard to estimate and the ancient historical figures [sic] are scarce in numbers on the lists." - however, this seems to be a cop-out. Essentially, it says that because you can't establish an exact valuation or CPI for those times, you can ignore them. I think that's poor methodology. Raul654 (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.