While I fully appreciate the difficulty of maintaining such a list up to date with the lack of available informatino, I am nominating this for featured list removal because if currently fails the Comprehensiveness and Stability criteria. The following issues are observable:
The lead is not in sync with the inclusion criteria: it mentions 50 m, while the inclusion criteria is 60 m.
Lacks some buildings present in the Romanian version, specifically older, communist blocks (e.g. "Bloc 15D").
Sources do not support the data (e.g. for Ana tower the height is not mentioned in the source) or are outdated (e.g. for Monaco towers it seems to be an old version of the website from before the buildings were completed; the current completion date seems to be 2010).
The notes are out of date (e.g. for Bucharest Corporate Center) or present original research not supported by the source (for Millenium Business Center).
Abuses internal links by linking all entries of the same group of buildings to the article.
Before nominating I left the same message on the TP of the article and WikiProject Romania.Strainu (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This looks salvageable but needs some work. Additional issues I notice:
Coordinates columns shouldn't be sortable, and there should be a references column.
Some reference dates are formatting as YYYY-MM-DD.
There should be images of all the buildings, as these aren't really hard to obtain for anyone living in the city. The image column should also probably be removed for the "under construction" section as its empty.
A dynamic map of where the tallest buildings are located within the city would be nice.
Cheers, ((u|Sdkb))talk 22:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Romania doesn't have FoP, so images of every building should not be a requirement (per WP:FUC).--Strainu (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This one isn't that bad. With a bit of work, someone could get it back up relatively quickly. ~ HAL333 05:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist- Certainly not up to current standards. Many outdated terminology "This lists ranks", some of the under construction buildings have dates indicating they should be completed last year. Lead year out of date. The "proposed" or "approved" sections shouldn't even be there, they run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Lots of work to bring it up to current standards. Mattximus (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delisted. --PresN 19:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been removed, 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.
This page is maybe salvageable but would definitely need some work (and it's on such an obscure topic, I'm not sure that that work will be forthcoming). Issues include outdated enrollment figures, failure to sort the years column properly, potential overuse of foreign terms/italics and other minor style issues, and missing websites. There have been some moves or something that have turned the nominator into a redlink, so I'm not sure if they're still around or how to reach them if they are. ((u|Sdkb))talk 06:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article with the latest enrollment info from the Ministry of Education. Although 101 schools are listed, 39 have no students and may be closed. One such school, Quebrada del Nuevo Reino, had students in 2014 and I have removed it from the current list. --Kuatrero (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist There are a lot of strange problems with this list. The lead does not match the list (for example, largest school population number), there are categories defined in the lead but not including terms in the table (what does Middle Major mean?), some of the paragraph under schools should be footnotes, "The enrollments given here are" is outdated terminology (tautological) and could simply be (2020) in the column header. There need to be more citations (how do we know there are 26 schools in the lead, what source is that from?). It's not impossible with some effort to bring it up to standard if someone is willing, but it's extremely niche. Mattximus (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator renamed a couple of times, from Diego Grez to Diego Grez-Cañete to Vanished user 24kwjf10h32h. They are currently site-banned and have made no edits since November 2015 so it's unlikely they will return to respond to any issues raised, but I've left a note on their talkpage in the meantime. Zupotachyon (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delisted. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been removed, 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.
I am nominating this 2007 nomination for removal because it is lacking in sourcing, as evidenced by the template. Many of the conservation statuses are not cited. I also wonder whether any have changed since 2014 (Having recently done this for a much shorter list, I know that adding dozens of IUCN citations is no easy or quick task.) Many images are also absent, despite availability. ~ HAL333([4]) 01:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The sourcing tag is definitely valid, which alone is enough. The images are also lacking, and there are concerns about the formatting. No improvement since nom. ((u|Sdkb))talk 06:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what is meant by the "sourcing tag".
The main problem is that, due to the lower standards in 2007, the article was promoted in spite of the limited references. The lack of images is also due to the article's age as all the available images I have checked are dated after 2007. Is the nominator Circeus interested in updating the article to modern standards? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely do not have the energy or time to work through the list all over at this point, especially with libraries shut down here b/c of coronavirus. Circéus (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – no in-line citations in lead or tables to verify facts, poor accessibility due to lack of proper alt text, and poor visual style in violation of FLCR #5a due to inconsistent text formatting. I don't think this is going to get updated any time soon. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delisting. --PresN 22:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been removed, 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.
This list has quite a few issues. The lead is overlong, mostly bloated by examples that should be in the tables. In the alumni table, the relationships column is a mess, with some entries just marked with "U", which I'm not even sure what it means. A few are missing references, as are some faculty entries. I'm not sure whether the honorary degree recipients are important enough to warrant listing. In the references, there are a few permanent dead links, a title error, and a ref used several dozen times that should be in the column heading. ((u|Sdkb))talk 03:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per all of the points by Sdkb. Some of the inclusions are definitely questionable, such as one redlinked alumnus known for being "Wanted by US police as a pedophile"?... ~ HAL333 05:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Red linked alumni should all be removed. And I'm not sure what "people" means in the title. Perhaps narrowing the scope to alumni would be wiser, with a separate page for presidents. The "relationship" column is unsourced and I'm not sure what it even means. Mattximus (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delisting. --PresN 22:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been removed, 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.
