Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Religions by country

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 1 support, 5 oppose. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Detailed and verified information about the population of percentage of major religions in over 200 countries or territories (maybe about recognized 99% of total countries or territories in the World) has been gathered in several tables which describes the issue perfectly. I think this article meets WP:WIAFL.Angelo De La Paz 00:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - numerous problems need to be solved.

• Use of external links instead of inline citations is unacceptable. See WP:CITE.
• There still is a {{Original research}} tag still on the article.
• There are a ton of stub tags at the bottom.
• The multiple colors in the table look frankly atrocious. Standardize the colors. Grey is preferable.
• Adding "etc..." anywhere is not acceptable. List all of relevant items or none.
• What is the purpose of the Notes section? It's confusing how it fits into the rest of the article.
• The lead needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone and have in-line citations added. Also for the lead:

• You don't need to state the list of articles that this article is the parent of, that is for the "Lists by country" section at the bottom, which should be retitled "See also".
• There is excessive amounts of bold text. Only the main subject of the article should be in bold per Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title.
• The asides in the lead about these religions are not from a neutral point of view. The lead should summarize what the article is talking about, not your personal views on these issues.
• There's a ton of spelling errors. Copy it into a text editor or some other method.
• The lead should make note of which religions are the most prevalent, which would explain your choices in the table.
• Closely read WP:LEAD. Frankly, I think the entire lead needs to be rewritten.

• Your "Sources" section should link to those sites instead of listing them as external links. If any of them are not sources, then they should be under an "External links" section per WP:EL.
• Many of the percentages in the table are not listed or have a "n/a" placed there. Either place something or add a citation explaining why the "n/a" is there.
• The sorting function of the table appears to be broken. When I tried to sort the leftmost column, I got the Cocos Islands as the top option.
• The "Notes" part of the table needs serious copy-editing. Remove all the asterisks, and you can't use "&" instead of "and". Featured material is supposed to be immaculate in terms of grammar. I'd request the services of someone at WP:LOCE to look over this article.

• To be honest, this article needs a lot of work before reaching FL status. I'd highly recommend asking another set of eyes to look at the article to fix the above problems, as the article has to be completely revamped in order for this nomination to pass. Best of luck though. Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - The key introduction is atrocious, and discourages one from reading further in what is potentially an interesting list. Otherwise I'd agree that all the problems listed above need to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 08:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Please see WP:LEAD. The lead is written horribly with punctuation errors everywhere. I didn't see further down in the list. This was big enough reason for my strong oppose. DSachan 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Featured lists are not peer reviews, simply asking another editor to take a look over this would have highlighted some of the plethora of problems that plague this list. I think the colours are, frankly, atrocious. They certainly don't meet the guidelines of Accessibility. All of the problems highlighted by Sephiroth need to be worked on first before it can even be considered for WP:FL. Sorry for being so blunt, but this article needs some work. Woodym555 21:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per everything detailed above. Good start though. -- Drewcifer (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)