Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Portuguese monarchs/archive2

List of Portuguese monarchs edit

I'm nominating this article for FLRC since it clearly fails 1. c. of the featured list criteria. It only contains a link to one source which is a book, and that book is in Portuguese. While there is disagreement amongst some as to what 1. c. should be, this article is at the far end of the spectrum and fails 1. c. in every way since it makes no effort to establish verifiability / reliability - such efforts could be Harvard citations, inline citations etc. etc. So for these reasons, I vote Remove. LuciferMorgan 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With references , it is quality, not quantity which counts. Given the subject matter, a Portugese-language refernce is hardly surprising. Also, listing general references in a section at the end is fine for a list (c.f. BAFTA Award for Best Film, List of Alberta general elections) Tompw (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Tompw. The Ogre 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it's a reliable source then. I don't speak Portuguese and this is an English Wikipedia and not the Portuguese one, so I'd like to know how reliability can be proven. If this can be kept then the 1c criteria of FL's doesn't exist in other words. LuciferMorgan 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just added sources, two in Portuguese, I grant you..., but one in English, it's:Jiří Louda & Michael Maclagan (1981), "Portugal", in Lines of Succession. Heraldry of the Royal families of Europe, London, Orbis Publishing, pp. 228-237. ISBN 0-85613-672-7. (revised and updated edition by Prentice Hall College Div - November 1991. ISBN 0028972554.) The Ogre 23:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, any primary school book in Portugal presents the same list... The Ogre 23:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think its easy to get a Featured List judging by this, unless the Fair Use Gestapo gets on one's case during a nomination. LuciferMorgan 00:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy??? Only half of candidates get promoted. The ones get failed tend to be on the grounds of lead, lack of references or layout. Tompw (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes easy, that's what I said. This article has zero referencing, so I fail to see how lack of referencing would matter considering people are voting keep on this. Hurricanehink works his backside off to reference his FLCs (and my hat goes off to him), and then people let embarassments like this stay at FLC - it's a disgrace really. LuciferMorgan 23:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how you can say "This article has zero referencing" It has references, including (now) one in English. Tompw (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did say it has zero referencing and will continue to do so. Anyone can blindly add a book name with some random page number and it proves nothing since it cites nothing specific in the article. It's in no way FLC - if it is then there's a few other (more worthy) lists which need promoting. LuciferMorgan 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It provides a source for the information contained in the article. Are you argueing that providing a general book reference for all the information contained in a list isn't acceptable? Tompw (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am, since it doesn't say which page has which info etc. It's too broad to just use a general book reference - each fact the book references should be cited with the page number. LuciferMorgan 23:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]