Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance/archive1

List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance edit

I believe this list meets all of the requirements for a featured list. It's also a comprehensive list, stable, well-written and well-constructed. All the images in the article are properly tagged.

Support as nom. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 03:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Support' Although I think that the article could still use some minor tweaking and rechecking to keep it clean of vandalism, the amount of work that needs to be done doesn't negate the fact that it is a detailed, comprehensive list. --Hailinel 19:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hailinel, it would have been good if you'd pointed out that you've made a significant contribution to this list. Tompw (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry about that. It honestly slipped my mind to do that. I meant no harm or offense.--Hailinel 01:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Insufficient lead (criterion 2a), Table of Contents far too long (see criterion 2c) and no explanation of what "Class", "Class change" or "Type" Weapons (i.e., not annotated with additional information per criterion 1f). Tompw (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation of what "Class", "Class change" or "Type" Weapons...Uh?? I don't undertand that...Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 15:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For each charcter, the headings "Class", "Class change" or "Type" appear (although "type" has been changed to "race" since I made my comment)... what do "Class" and "Class change" mean? (Not sure why the word 'weapon' apeared in my original comment). Tompw (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Tom's statement above. RobJ1981 01:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having made several edits in an effort to fit the guidelines, I withdraw my support. Although I've done what I can for the time being, the article has a lot more work needed on it than I expected. Anyway, that shows me to jump in with my support without checking over the guielines and giving a closer look to the article first. Once again, sorry about that. For now, I'll change my vote to Oppose.--Hailinel 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also fails criterion 1c -- lack of inline citations. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to what's been stated already, the images do not have fair use rationales. The copyright tag isn't enough. Jay32183 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]