Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Periodic table (large version)

Periodic table (large version)
I am nominating this page because it was promoted over two years ago and I feel that it no longer meets the FL criteria. It is an unorthodox article, and very similar to one here, but I can see where having a large periodic table that includes links would be useful, so I have no quolms with that.

The list does not meet FL critera 2a (too small of a lead), 2b (doesn't make use of headings) or 2c (no table of contents). -- Scorpion0422 20:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead could be a little longer (someone on the relevant wikiproject could be asked) but shouldn't reproduce Periodic table as this is merely an alternative table view. I think 2a and 2b are irrelevant here and largely unactionable. Sometimes WP:IAR applies. Colin°Talk 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with Colin here, the lead probably does need expanding, but we need to ignore certain criteria if the criteria do not help the list or make it better. I dont see how adding sections or a table of contents would help at all.  I would definitely expand the lead, but I think this is one of the best looking lists on Wikipedia, so it would be nice if we could not take that pretty little star away.  Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the best of the featured lists. Rmhermen (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely a great graphic list, and I think if WP:IAR applies anywhere, it would apply here. That said, the lead could use a bit of an expansion.  Also, a See also section would be very helpful, since there's multiple versions of the periodic table on Wikipedia.  Also, although this might seem silly, some sources would be nice.  Even if it's just one source from a textbook, it would be helpful.  I have no complaints with the core table itself, I just think the surrounding article could be a little more informative. Drewcifer (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? The list has four sources and has had for over 2 years. Rmhermen (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck out some of my previous comments. Obviously I wasn't paying attention: the periodic table box thingie serves as a "see also" section, and there was references the whole time.  My mistake.  So, to re-evaluate the article: I think the lead could be expanded considerably, and the references that are there need to give proper attribution.  Author, publisher, etc.  A WP:Citation template would certainly do the trick. Drewcifer (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said it wasn't a great list, just like you say, the surrounding article needs improvement. -- Scorpion0422 16:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, how to put this... this is not a list, it is a (periodic) table. In my opinion, it is more closely analogous to an image than to a list. I think it is a very nice depiction of the periodic table, so I understand the desire for Featuring it in some way. In fact, I have no objection to featuring it as sort of "honorary list" (unless we come up with some sort of "Featured miscellanea"). So, in that sense, I agree with the IAR comments. But in that case, I would go further and say that this type of "list" does not require a longer explanatory lead. All the explanation one needs is the Periodic table article itself. This is just a supplement to it, akin to the periodic table that is printed on the inside cover of most chemistry textbooks, also with little explanation. Most normal lists, such as List of tallest buildings in the world, need a lead explaining the nature of the list, the inclusion and sorting criteria, caveats, etc. Not in this case, which is IMO self-explanatory. This is the periodic table, shown in what is its de facto standard depiction.--Itub (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While it is kind of on the side of an image, it is a list because it "brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria", which is among the Featured list criteria. -- Scorpion0422 17:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Ok, say you are right and the lead should be longer; do you have any actual opinions about what would fit in the introduction? I personaly cannot think of something missing in the introduction, and therefore, is comprehensive enough. Until I hear specific examples of missing information, I think the 2a criteria is passed.
 * " a concise lead section that summarizes the scope of the list and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in sections subsequent to the lead;"
 * Nergaal (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, a lead is supposed to be a summary of an article, so perhaps it could have the number of elements and a brief background, ie. When it was first used, how up to date the table is, etc. I think at the very least it should have three sentences. -- Scorpion0422 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Since nobody else seemed to want to do it, I went ahead and made the fixes myself. I believe all of my concerns have been addressed. -- Scorpion0422 00:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to embody all the relevant list FA requirements to me. --mav (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)