This page is for the review and improvement of
featured lists that may no longer meet the
featured list criteria. FLs should be kept at current standards, regardless of when they were promoted. Any objections raised in the review must be actionable.
The FLC director,
Giants2008, or his delegates,
PresN and
The Rambling Man, 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 delist has 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 as
featured list candidates) or lists that have recently survived a removal attempt – such nominations are likely to be removed summarily.
A bot
will update the list talk page after the list has been kept or the nomination has been archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLRC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates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.
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.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because the version of the article right now is not as good as the 2017 version, and lots of the text is outdated and not supported by sources. In the FL version
[1], all the tables had sources for every team, but these have been removed, in violation of
WP:VERIFY. This is enough to automatically fail this review in my opinion, as it isn't easily fixable. There are also multiple issues with the lead, including:
Text on the formats isn't supported by the source
[2], as the source says there were different formats from 2020-2022, whereas the text says there was a pre-2021 and 2022 onwards formats
Mumbai Indians have won five titles.[31] Chennai Super Kings have won five titles and Kolkata Knight Riders have won two titles, Gujarat Titans, Sunrisers Hyderabad and Rajasthan Royals, apart from former team Deccan Chargers, are the other teams to have won the tournament title as of May 2023. Not supported by the sources, which are mostly from 2016. People have updated the number of wins but not the source itself.
Altogether, thirteen teams have played in the past ten seasons of the IPL tournament. Out-of-date, as there have been 16 completed seasons (and this would need source update too). That whole paragraph is also way too overdetailed about team histories- the lead is meant to summarise the content of the lists, whereas this provides too much information.
The entire lead is too long as per
MOS:LEAD. This would require a complete re-write to have a lead that summarises the article, followed by a text summary in another section, followed by the tables themselves
The tables themselves have multiple problems too:
The row headings have been removed from all tables, compared to the FL version. This is a
MOS:ACCESS issue
The "Overall team results" table has been changed so it's now using ridiculous amounts of
MOS:COLOUR violations, and has the host countries added, which is unnecessary trivia (since there's only been 4 seasons not hosted entirely in India, and that information isn't pertinent to understanding team results)
"Additional team statistics" table is newer than the FL version, and this is unsourced and doesn't actually give useful additional information
As such, this doesn't currently meet the FL criteria, and so should be considered for de-listing unless significant corrections are made.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 13:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Gonzo_fan2007 as I noted, the user who nominated it for FL is indefinitely blocked, so makes no sense to notify them. And I've notified relevant WikiProjects, so I don't believe anyone else is required.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 09:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
And no other active editors have made substantial edits to this according to
[3].
Joseph2302 (
talk) 10:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Joseph2302, when I commented the WikiProjects hadn't been notified (or at least the notices weren't added to the top of this page). Everything looks good, appreciate it. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 14:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment one more issue I've found: Player of the tournament column has flags without country names in violation of
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Accompany flags with country names. Also, there are players listed as Jamaica, Trinidad etc in violation of
MOS:SPORTFLAG (they compete(d) internationally for West Indies, not the constituent countries).
Joseph2302 (
talk) 13:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delist – The main tables were once sourced, but a series of edits in 2021 by
Rachit Methwani seemed to remove these sources for no clear reason. Unless someone adds them back, the list fails
WP:FLCR #3b.
RunningTiger123 (
talk) 19:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:
1. Prose: the prose is choppy and could probably use a full rewrite.
2. Lead:Tom McCloskey should be linked. The lead is pointlessly self-referencing in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks necessary inline citations in the lead and within the table (the awards especially). There is too much of a reliance on "general references". Some sources appear to either be dead, out of date or unreliable.
3c. Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of
WP:FL today, both in the table, the key and no alt text on the photo.
4. Structure: the structure of the table is a bit off. The last section needs the darker gray formatting of the cells. The awards need some sort of acronym definition.
The list was nominated over 15 years ago when standards were quite different. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:
1. Prose: the prose is choppy (While the National Football League (NFL) does not recognize the Browns’ AAFC championships, the Pro Football Hall of Fame does recognize the team’s championships, which is reflected in this list.)
2. Lead: the lead appears a little short considering other season lists. There are also some links that need to be added (like Detroit Lions, Pittsburgh Steelers and wild-card round. Just generally needs some clean-up. Could also use a photo in the lead.
3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks any inline citations in the lead and within the table. Sources lack consistent formatting (dates especially) and there is reliance on "general references". Some sources appear to either be dead, out of date or unreliable.
4. Structure: the notes and inline cites need to be split into separate sections.
Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of
WP:FL today, both in the table and the legend.
The list was nominated over 15 years ago when standards were quite different. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 14:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delist unfortunately per nom.
Queen of ♡ |
speak 07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply