Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 2021

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Eurovision Song Contest is an international television song competition that regularly attracts over 200 million global viewers each year. In its 66 year history over 1,500 songs from 52 countries have been performed and it has amassed a truly global following. I believe this list complies with all the criteria to be promoted to featured list; it includes a full record of all songs performed in the contest, as well as those which were withdrawn or disqualified, it features several prose elements which provide context and clarit, it is appropriately sourced with reliable and independent websites and books, and it has been made visually appealing through its structure and the inclusion of relevant photographs of some of the contest's participating artists. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commentys

• The lead could do with a fourth paragraph summarising more of the content eg which country has entered most/fewest times, which country has won most, that sort of thing
• Nothing in the current lead is referenced
• "Australia, a EBU associate member broadcaster" - Australia is not a broadcaster
• None of the explanations in the table key are complete sentences, so they shouldn't have full stops
• "Dana International earned Israel's third Eurovision victory in 1998, and became the contest's first transgender winner." - last part needs a source
• "Valentina Monetta has made four contest appearance" => "Valentina Monetta has made four contest appearances"
• In the Entries which failed to qualify table, the refs are not in correct numerical order (in two places)
• All the notes with the exception of note (a) are not complete sentences, so they shouldn't have full stops
• That's what I got on a first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the feedback, I believe I have now implemented all the above. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This is a really long list, and it's only going to keep growing from here. Wikipedia:Article size suggests 10,000 words as an upper limit on article length, and if we count each row as approximately 10 words, this is well beyond that length. Also, table markup adds lots of HTML code that isn't shown as text, further increasing load times beyond what the word count would imply. Would it make sense to split this list up? I would suggest grouping the results into lists for 1956–2000 and 2001–present or 1956–79, 1980–99, 2000–19, and 2020–present, but I want to get other thoughts first. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: I wouldn't be opposed to splitting the list in principle. Personally I felt it made more sense to keep it as a single list particularly for the "failed to qualify" and "withdrawn/disqualified" sections which contain proposed entries from a range of years. What would a potential split mean for the FL process? If the split were made into 1956-1999 and 2000-present, would the FL be given to the 1956-1999 page as the more "complete" of the two? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good questions. For the "failed to qualify" and "withdrawn/disqualified" tables, I think we could split those as well so the relevant parts of each table go on each new page. In regard to the FL process, if a split were to happen, it would probably be best to withdraw the nomination, split the page, and renominate each new list that meets the criteria one at a time. However, that's a lot of work that may be unnecessary if others find the length acceptable, which is why I would like to hear other reviewers' opinions and ideas before any additional steps are taken. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is split, that would also mean we'd have to rewrite almost all the prose, since most of it talks about the contest in general and not a specific year range. Maybe we could move it over to the main Eurovision Song Contest article? ―JochemvanHees (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my slow reply – in my opinion, much of the prose could be kept as is in every new list after a potential split. In particular, the parts discussing the overall history and eligibility for the contest are mostly fine; some specific references might have to be tweaked if they fall outside the date range, but other than that, I see no issues there. The details like the number of total appearances would probably vary from article to article based on the years they cover, though the present-day article could keep the discussion of overall records. (In this case, I would suggest naming using a naming scheme like List of entries in the Eurovision Song Contest (1956–99) and List of entries in the Eurovision Song Contest, omitting the year range from the most recent list. This is similar to how List of The Simpsons episodes, another long FL, is organized.)

@Sims2aholic8: Maybe a discussion for this could be opened per WP:PROSPLIT? That way, we could see if other users think a split is needed and, if so, how to split it. I would suggest opening the discussion at Talk:List of entries in the Eurovision Song Contest but linking to it at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest for more visibility. I'd also be willing to open the discussion if you'd like. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Thanks for your insights again! I think a discussion on whether to split this list would be beneficial, and I'm happy for you to kick this off on the list's talk page. Linking in with Talk:Eurovision Song Contest would be helpful, as would getting input from our wider WikiProject through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. I have had some thoughts on what a split could look like myself, but eager to hear other views as well. Knowing that other FLs have also gone through the splitting process is also very helpful. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sims2aholic8: I've started a discussion for a potential split and added notices where relevant. If you're willing, I think it would be great if you added your thoughts to the discussion as well. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I've added my two cents to the discussion as well now. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): while the tables have column scopes and captions, they are missing rowscopes, and have column headers in the middle of the table.

• For each row, the 'primary' cell should be marked with `scope="row"`, e.g. instead of `| 1` it should be `!scope="row"| 1`, with the rest of the row on its own line. If the way this changes the formatting of that column bothers you, you can add the `plainrowheaders` class to the top of the table at `{| class="wikitable"`
• Column headers in the middle of tables like "Eurovision Song Contest 1956" are contraindicated as screen reading software trips on them, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. Please remove.

--PresN 14:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list is now currently undergoing a split following discussion and consensus, therefore I am now revoking this nomination. Once the split has been completed and further updates from the comments above have been fulfilled I will most likely submit the newly split list once again. Many thanks to everyone who participated in this nomination procedure. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, when you wish to withdraw a nomination, you should ping the FLC directors using {{@FLC}} so they'll see it. I agree with the decision to withdraw for now, but I look forward to reviewing the new lists once they have been cleaned up from the split!

@FLC director and delegates: Since it's been a few days, I figured I'd add the ping myself to ensure the withdrawal happens. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --PresN 22:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): –Piranha249 15:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria necessary for such a nomination, including comprehensiveness, prose, structure, and style. –Piranha249 15:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not an overall review of the article, but I want to mention that Note A is not fully correct. While the 2-2-1-1-1 schedule is used now, it has not always been the case. For example, 1994 the Western Conference some series used the 2-3-2 format, including one on this list (1994 Maple Leafs-Sharks). Thus I would suggest re-wording the note. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The first two paragraphs in the lead need sources since they are discussing information not included in the table.
• Images need alt text.
• I would suggest using a different format for footnotes, such as Template:Efn. This would allow the footnotes to pop up by hovering over the note, similar to references, instead of forcing the user to click the link to another section.
• Use Template:See also for link to List of NHL overtime game sevens (though I don't think that list is even necessary... an AfD may be in order for that list since all of the information it covers is in this list).
  • Edit: After further consideration and review of that list, I decided to change it to a redirect to this list per WP:CFORK and WP:BOLD. This means the "See also" link should be removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The green boxes and ^ symbols are not needed to denote game seven in the Stanley Cup Finals. Writing "Finals" in column 2 already conveys the same information without cluttering the table with more symbols.
• Don't use small font for Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum Arena – just make the column wider. (Generally, smaller fonts should be avoided for accessibility reasons.)
• The wikilinks in column 2 seem inconsistent. I see that you've avoided duplicate wikilinks for the same playoffs, but I think it would be better to have the links in every row and to distinguish the links by linking to specific sections. So, for example, the 2019 first round could link to 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs#First Round instead of just 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs and the 2019 second round could link to 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs#Second Round.
• The ∞ symbol and notes b/c are redundant. If the game is at a neutral site, obviously the winner was the designated home/road team when they won instead of actually being at home/on the road.
• Use Template:Abbr to show that "Ref." in the last column means "References".

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123, I've done several of your suggestions, such as using Template:Efn and Template:Abbr. But I did run into issues with others:

• The Green boxes were originally used in the NBA Game sevens article, also a featured list. Should that be in question, too?
• What's the perfect width for Venue column?
• How else is people supposed to know who was the designated home/road team in a neutral site game?

I'll look for sources wherever possible for the article lead. Now that the NFL season is over as of Sunday, this list will be one of my top priorities. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To explain some of my points:

• While the NBA list uses the boxes, I'm not a huge fan of it. Why say something twice when we can say it once? In my opinion, the additional green boxes and ^ notes get in the way and disrupt readability without adding anything new – the round is already noted in the second column – so we should remove them. Also, the NBA list was approved over 10 years ago, so I don't think it fully represents current FL standards.
• I don't know what the "perfect width" is – there's no right or wrong answer as long as the table still fits comfortably on the page.
• If a game is marked with the ∞ symbol, then a red row would indicate the winner was the designated road team and a white row would indicate the winner was the designated home team. Alternatively, if a winning team is marked with note b or c as the designated home/road team, the game must have been played at a neutral site. Either way, one of the two symbols can be removed – the latter probably does a better job. Again, why say something twice?

–RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123, I've already started to remove the green boxes at your suggestion, and I still have 5 (6?) left to remove. I also removed the notes regarding last year's playoffs (for consistency purposes, I used red rows). I still have to resolve the width of the venue column, but that's about it. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 00:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I endorse all of the above and add.....

• "Since its opening in 1968, eight game sevens have been played at the Madison Square Garden." - being British, I am no expert, but isn't it just called "Madison Square Garden" rather than "the Madison Square Garden"?
• Shouldn't the latest name of the Winnipeg Jets (I) / Phoenix Coyotes be shown? Or are you only showing names under which the franchise played a game 7?
• Think that's all that hasn't already been mentioned....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ChrisTheDude, I've updated the MSG caption, and will do the same for the Coyotes. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• As per RT123's comments, paras 1 and 2 of the lead still need sourcing
• I also agree that the green box and symbol aren't needed given that "Finals" is noted in column 2
• Small text is still present - it should just be normal text
• I also agree that if the infinity symbol is used to denote a neutral site game then notes b and c aren't needed. Or else get rid of the symbol and just keep the notes, in which case remove the full stops from the notes, as they are not complete sentences....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ChrisTheDude, Is there a way to retract this featured list nomination, at least until I get all those issues resolved? I plan on renominating it when that happens. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 17:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, if you really want to withdraw, you just have to state that here and one of the directors will close the nom. But TBH the outstanding issues aren't major, they should be resolvable within the timeframe of this FLC..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ChrisTheDude, Thanks, I won't withdraw after all. But I'll have to find sources for those paragraphs sooner or otherwise ask for help. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 21:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, at a quick glance I would say this covers basically the whole of para 2...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• Consistent all around, retrieval dates, publisher/website

Reliability

• Looks good, ref 1 is an NHL website, the rest are statistical info from the same site so no issue(s) here.

Verifiability

• Checked 2, 14, 38, 66 all good
• 170 appears to be the wrong reference
• ref 173 is broken and not archived
• Paragraph one, as others have said above, still needs a reference(s). Aza24 (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• No issues with File:Madison Square Garden, February 2013.jpg
• I'll assume good faith that File:Detroit December 2015 59 (Joe Louis Arena).jpg is in fact the uploader's own work since no evidence to the contrary can be found
• It doesn't sound right to say "game seven is the only one in a best-of-seven series that is not guaranteed more than one game in advance" when one team could theoretically win 4 consecutive games in a series before even a fifth is played
• "The only active NHL franchise that has never played in a game seven is the Columbus Blue Jackets" seems like it would be better for the Jackets' article. Let's focus more here on who did reach a seventh game within a series.
• Starting four sentences in a row with "the" feels repetitive (see the third paragraph).
• Not sure "NHL Records" should be italicized. Either way, remove the italics for "hockey-reference.com" (which should read "Hockey Reference").
• Too much use of Hockey Reference. That doesn't mean it's a bad publication, just that you should implement some other sources for the sake of diversity. Literally the only citation (as of this revision) which doesn't come from that website is the first one, namely NHL Records.

Mainly due to the excessive reliance on one publication, I oppose the nomination for now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the lead needs some more citations, which would likely come from other sources, but there is nothing wrong with the large reliance on a single source for citations in an FL. See, for instance, the recently promoted FLs List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1953 (49/57 sources from Billboard) or List of international goals scored by Manon Melis (49/54 sources from the Royal Dutch Football Association). As long as it's reliable, there's nothing wrong with it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those cases aren't as reliant on a certain publication. My issue is that there's only a singular citation from anywhere else. Using one or two different sources doesn't feel like enough. I personally recommend using five different sources at minimum. More diversity within references helps show that more than one organization was interested in covering a subject. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): the table is missing column and rowscopes, and a caption.

• Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
• Each column header should be marked with `scope="col"`, e.g. instead of `! Year !! ...` it should be `! scope="col" | Year` with each header on its own line.
• For each row, the 'primary' cell should be marked with `scope="row"`, e.g. instead of `| 1939 (1) || ...` it should be `!scope="row"| 1939 (1)`, with the rest of the row on its own line. If the way this changes the formatting of that column bothers you, you can add the `plainrowheaders` class to the top of the table at `{| class="wikitable"`

--PresN 14:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy ping for @Piranha249:, there seem to be quite a few issues here that have now piled up a bit. Aza24 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, I'm aware of the issues, and will start to make changes to accommodate them. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 00:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list has been here for over 3 months without any support, and an oppose has sat for a month without being addressed. Closing as a stalled nomination; feel free to re-nominate whenever the issues are addressed. --PresN 19:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another Burnley F.C. list (and the last one)... This one covers all players who have made between 50 and 99 appearances for the club. Some familiar names might include Charlie Austin and Joey Barton. One of the early pioneering managers and a quite unknown figure in England, Jimmy Hogan, is also included. I'm looking forward to all feedback/reviews! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per criterion 3c. I apologize I missed the other FLC, but I am just baffled why this would be split from List of Burnley F.C. players. Neither list is so long or complex that it needs to be broken up, and doing so reduces the utility of sorting the table. I just test-implemented a combined list and the page is only 70kb (and page length restrictions only apply to readable prose). Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 I proposed a merger between the two lists not too long ago (Talk:List of Burnley F.C. players) but it was rejected. These kind of lists are growing rapidly because a player "only" has to play two seasons to be included. This list was never split in the first place but just created to include Burnley F.C. players who have played between 50 and 99 apps for the team, as is common for other clubs, although most have players included between 25 and 99 apps (see e.g. List of Arsenal F.C. players (25–99 appearances), List of Cardiff City F.C. players (25–99 appearances), List of Gillingham F.C. players (25–49 appearances)). Also, this list is currently about 36kb, which is enough to be a stand-alone list. I hope you want to reconsider your oppose. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that there are already 12 FLs of the type "List of Example F.C. players (nn-nn appearances)"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris's comment there was "The merged article would be huge" but I just did a test merge on that page, and it is by no means too huge, smaller than many other FLs. GiantSnowman said there should be "manageable articles" but I see no basis to suggest that this is unmanageable. This combined Burnley article would have 371 names, while List of Gillingham F.C. players (also >50 apps) has 406 names. Is that page manageable? Absolutely. List of Manchester United F.C. players (1–24 appearances) has 477 names but are we actually having trouble managing that? If this were 1-99 two articles may make more sense. I think a few of the other teams' lists could be consolidated too – again, improving sortability and reducing duplication – and the excuse that other pages are split doesn't hold water, especially since it seems all of those go down to 25 or even just 1 appearance! Reywas92^Talk 21:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 That testmerge shows the list will be quite large and will be much larger within a few seasons per the reasons above (and might cause a split proposal in the near future). Burnley have had about 1,500 players in their history (in +/- 140 years). If we would make a list which includes players who made between 1 and 99 apps, it would consist of at least 1,200 players (too much and the number will grow and grow). I don't see a valid reason why such lists (25/50-99 apps) shouldn't be existing.

GiantSnowman and ChrisTheDude (sorry to bother you both) might explain their reasons better than me... WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say to cross that bridge when you get to it. Neither the above Manchester and Gillingham articles are unmanageable, nor is this combined one. Reywas92^Talk 22:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting confused as to what Reywas92 is suggesting - is it that the list of players with 50-99 apps should be merged in with the list of those with 100+ apps, while the 1-49 list should remain separate? Or that all three should be merged together? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, scratch that, I hadn't noticed (half asleep) that there isn't actually a 1-49 list for Burnley....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I confess when I commented at the above-linked talk page I think I was skim-reading and thought the proposal was to create a single list for all Burnley players ever, not just one for 50+..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard to split lists like this into separate articles, broken down by number of appearances. I don't understand what the issue is. GiantSnowman 10:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, Chris and Snowman. I should have been clearer in the merge proposal, to save the confusion. This situation leaves us with some options. Firstly, this nom can stay open but won't attract many reviewers because of the real possibility that this nom will be archived (and I don't blame anyone who doesn't want his/her time being wasted on reviewing it). We can also merge both lists. Thirdly, we can leave it as it is and maybe even create a third one (but leave the possibility it will be opposed for the same reason). And there are some more options. I don't really have a strong preference to be honest, but I'm interested what would be the wisest decision. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"this nom can stay open but won't attract many reviewers" - there's no reason to assume this will be the case....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People are more than welcome to review the page and overrule my opinion, but I think one topic ought to be reviewed as one featured article rather than separate assessments, and I see no basis for this split other than "but other pages have been split!" since the other split pages have a greater total number of entries. IMHO the need to a split for "manageability" is not there as the merged list is still an easily editable size, in accordance with 3c. You've done really fine work on this and I otherwise support but keeping it on one page would still have it all featured. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 Fair enough. Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate it. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I genuinely couldn't find anything to pick up, and I don't have an issue with the list being separate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you as ever for the comments and review, Chris! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: I would like to withdraw this nomination as a merge with the parent article would probably be better... Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): A.A Prinon (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I had put effort to create this article. I tried to deliver a very good article with reliable sources and significant coverage. I tried to create in a way that meets WP:GNG. I gave lists of wicket-keepers serially with reliable sources.A.A Prinon (talk)

Comment

• The text at the top of this page says "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". Your existing FLC does not yet have substantial support, so you need to wait a while before starting another one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Chris's comment above, A.A Prinon, can you please withdraw your nomination for the time being? Use {{@FLC}} to ping the direct/delegates. Aza24 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review: The table is missing colscopes, rowscopes, and a caption. For further details, see your other FLC, where I note you have not responded to the accessibility review.

As noted, that FLC does not have substantial support, so this should be closed. On top of that, this list is minuscule- its 6 items are exceeded only slightly by the 7 sentences of text scattered over 4 paragraphs. I'm going to go ahead and close this; once your other FLC is closed or has received substantial support you can re-nominated, though I ask that you take a step back and consider first, as a list typically needs a lot of justification and content to justify having <10 items. --PresN 03:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.