Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of family relations in the NHL/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Dabomb87 02:29, 6 May 2010.

List of family relations in the NHL

 * Notified: WP:NHL, User:FutureNJGov &mdash; KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 00:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it doesn't meet the current criteria. Not sure if it can be brought up to standards, but I would love to see it improved. Major concerns include no lead image, only a one-paragraph lead (a list this long should have three to four paragraphs of this length), the format of the opening sentence (and the second, single-sentence paragraph, which isn't necessary). There's inconsistency in the formatting of the notes: some are complete sentences, and punctuated thus. Others are fragments, but some are punctuated properly and some are not. Every row should have a similar format. I would personally prefer to see references moved into their own column. The images are too small to be of any use to the article. The column widths appear to be the reason that the images can't be made larger. The notes column should not be sortable. For that matter, I don't see what purpose sorting by first name has, because of the piped links. The format of this list could be greatly improved to be more in line with the criteria for aesthetics. There is at least one note that is not referenced. The blacklinks for duplicated names which are much further down in the article than their original occurrence should be linked again. The reference section should never be enclosed in a scrolling box per MOS, and there are several sources of questionable provenance, as well as some deadlinks. Shockingly, this list is also tagged as being "incomplete" at the bottom. In sum, the current version fails the following criteria:
 * Criterion 1 (professional standards of writing): the lead contains quite a bit of informal language in addition to the issues mentioned above;
 * Criterion 2 (lead): the lead is not long enough and doesn't summarize the list;
 * Criterion 3a (comprehensiveness): if the list is truly incomplete, then it needs to be completed. If it cannot be, then that needs to be indicated;
 * Criterion 4 (structure): in my opinion, the structure of this list with the piped name links makes it very hard to navigate;
 * Criterion 5 (MOS): reference scroll box, as well as improper use of bold text.

In addition, the questionable sources make it unable to meet (at this time) one of the "requirements for all Wikipedia content". I'm also concerned about the abbreviation in the name, but that's minor. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 00:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove Apart from a short lead, it doesn't justify why family bonds in NHL are as relevant as to justify a list. Talking of contrived conjectures, could there equally be a List of relations in the European Parliament? Sandman888 (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove – Lead needs quite a bit of work, including cites for anything not covered in the many table notes. In addition, I see some of the same structure flaws that KV5 does, the microscopic photos in particular. There are also a few disambiguation links, along with loads of dead reference links (over 40 at least).  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 15:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.