Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

WP:FLRC redirects here. You may be looking for Flagged revisions (WP:FLR)

Removing Featured lists in Wikipedia This page is for the review and improvement of Wikipedia:Featured lists that may no longer meet the Featured list criteria. FLs should be kept at current standards regardless of when it was promoted. Any objections raised in the review must be actionable. The FLC director, Giants2008, or his delegates NapHit, Crisco 1492 and SchroCat—determine the exact timing of the process for each nomination. Nominations will last at least 14 days, and longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be kept, consensus must be reached that it still meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the delegates determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list, archived and added to Former featured lists if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews: actionable objections have not been resolved; or consensus to keep has not been reached; or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met Nominations may be closed earlier than the allotted two weeks if, in the judgment of the FLRC delegate, the list in the nomination: has a clear consensus to merge or redirect to another article or list. This consensus may be shown in Articles for deletion, a discussion on the article's talk page, a discussion on the relevant WikiProject(s), or other community venues that present a tangible consensus to merge or redirect the article; or contains a clear copyright violation and removal of the copyrighted material would severely degrade the quality of the list. Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates), or lists that have recently survived a removal attempt – such nominations are likely to be removed summarily. GimmeBot will update the list talk page after the list has been kept or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLRC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is delisted, editors should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating at Featured list candidates. Nominations will be removed on Tuesdays and Saturdays, just before User:GimmeBot's scheduled run at 00:00 UTC Wednesday and Sunday mornings.  – Table of Contents – Closing instructions	Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured portals Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Today's featured list This month's queue Main page requests TFL statistics Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log Toolbox FL Cleanup listing FL Cleanup task force Article statistics
Nomination procedure Place {{subst:FLRC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. From the FLRC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FLRC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, write your reason for nominating the list, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Please note which of the featured list criteria that the list fails to meet. Place {{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of the page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated article. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FLRCMessage|ArticleName|archive=# of archive page}} (for example, {{subst:FLRCMessage|List of Presidents of the United States|archive=1}}) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured List status (identifiable through the Featured List Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FLRC indicating whom you have notified and that notifications have been completed.

Nominations urgently needing reviews

edit · history · watch · refresh

The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

Lists nominated for removal

Taylor Swift discography

Notified: WikiProject Taylor Swift, WikiProject Discographies, WikiProject Country Music, WikiProject Pop music

I am nominating this for featured list removal for the following issues:

• The lead

• It is entirely US-centric and fails to take into account her success in any other nations, such as how "Love Story" was her first #1 song in Australia and "Today Was a Fairy Tale" became her first to top the charts in Canada.
• The prose itself could use work (i.e. "The album produced five singles, all of which"..... may as well give names, "hit" in "her first number-one hit" is too informal)

• The tables

• The "singles" section contains 11 columns when WP:WikiProject Discographies/style recommends using up to 10.
• I can understand having one component chart for a nation, but having both Country and Pop for US present at the same time is just overkill.
• Music videos really shouldn't contain rowspans; it hinders accessibility in instances like this.

• The references

• Many citations are malformatted (i.e. "australian-charts.com" should read "Australian Charts", "irish-charts.com" should read "Irish Charts")
• Some dead links need fixing
• I'm not sure if "Noise11" or "Radioscope" are good sources to use, but Us Weekly and "Zobbel.de" definitely aren't.

Overall, this list is simply not up to FL standards. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Noise11.com is acceptable as a temporary chart/certification source, but once ARIA/Hung medien updates, it should be replaced. Radioscope is reliable for the NZ old certifications, but again should be replaced whenever possible since RMNZ shows all the chart certifications now. Regarding the 11 charts, I will definitely say to revert the person who added it. Currently Taylor Swift does not require any genre charts to be added seeing that she went from Country to Pop and does not have extraordinary achievement on any particular genre/sub-chart, unlike Madonna for eg. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with all of the above. Nevertheless, some peak positions in the UK are not available in the official charts company website. Mainly regarding peaks above the top 100 and if they are backed by Chatsplus they will be fine. The rest a little work would do the trick and keep the page according to FA standards. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Note – I've done some major work on the list and will need some more time to bring it up to par. FrB.TG (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: that's a really good start. I would suggest to add France as one of the biggest markets in the chart tables to make it 10 charts. Because anything less than the 10 markets it opens a can of worms and prone to fanboy additions of obscure markets. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a good start indeed, though still needs work to meet standards Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I addressed every concern raised and everything I noticed. Hopefully it's all better now. Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Your efforts are appreciated. I just tweaked the lead a bit and don't see any glaring issues now. Good to keep. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Seeing FrB's efforts I can gladly say that this list can keep its featured status. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. due to the improvements. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Dallas

Notified: WikiProject Skyscrapers

Since it is almost identical to the recently demoted List of tallest buildings in Austin, Texas, I am nominating this for featured list removal because two whole sections (Under construction and approved/proposed) are completely unsourced. There are many, many outdated facts (numbers quoted are no longer found in the citations), all rankings are all wrong, and has dead links. This would take a lot of work to bring it up to standards again sadly. It was nominated almost 10 years ago and does not look to be well maintained, there are even broken tables with formatting issues. Mattximus (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delist not at all up to par, and multiple completely unsourced sections is by itself an automatic fail for FA, FL, and GA. The fact that it's outdated just makes things worse. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)