Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ministers of the Universal Life Church/archive1

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 not promoted by Giants2008 18:10, 23 August 2011 [1].

List of ministers of the Universal Life Church[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of ministers of the Universal Life Church/archive1

Nominator(s): Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a well-sourced list on a church of controversy, and notability. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Albacore: I think this list would be better if all the sub-sections would be combined into one list. Albacore (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (quick ones)

Agreed, this should be a single list.
Things like "Voice Actor" are overcapitalised, should be "Voice actor".
Don't mix date formats in the references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to keep the date formats the same, but I could see about fixing that, same with capitalization. I'm not sure I agree with the single list, though. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll make it easy, I oppose until the list is made single. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I fixed the date issue, the capitalization issue, and moved it into a single list. If I missed anything, please let me know. :-) Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref issues, what makes ref 11 (Myspace), ref 16 (Wordpress), ref 17 (blogspot), refs 18 and 20 (both Internet Movie Database), and ref 28 (Rooster Teeth.com) reliable? For the rest of the refs, remove the language parameter per Template:Cite web, the book refs need page numbers, and there is a URL showing in ref 22. Albacore (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd be able to get the book page number references, as I wasn't the one who added that in. Ref 11: That's the magazine's official site from what I can tell. Ref 16: It was a re-print of a newspaper article. Ref 17: It's his own, personal blog. Ref 18 & 20: The artist can at any time remove untrue information from IMBD. URL in ref 22 fixed. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Suggest you unbold the lead and link the church on the first mention.
Don't over link minister.
Suggest you could add nationality to the ministers as that would assist with the "universal"ness of the list.
Universal Press is a disambiguation link.
Perhaps if you have enough images, you can add them into the table as a column rather than the disparate set of images you currently have way off to the right of a very narrow list.
Your external link has people that aren't on this list, e.g. Bromner, Bobbitt, Doctorow, Hoffman.... In fact, it seems that this list is pretty much a weak copy-paste of that webpage...

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typical style seems to be to bold first, link later. But I did unbold "ULC" and removed the duplicate wikilinks. Nationality of the minsisters isn't usually mentioned in the references, and could be hard to add though I suspect most of them are American, thus negating the need for that sort of column. Adding the images in wouldn't be difficult, but we don't have images for everyone listed. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No typical style here, just WP:MOS. Nationality of every single minister can be found, I'm sure, and if not, what makes it "universal"? Images would be great, you have far more than you're using and the HUGE whitespace issue would be solved with adding it to the table (see BAFTA Academy Fellowship Award for instance). You didn't address the discrepancy between the external link and this list. And please make the table accessible by using row and col scope parameters. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose – Reliability of sources is lacking throughout. A lot of the below comments are repeats from TRM's review, but they're necessary ones.

First off, why is NNDB a reliable source? I've never seen this considered a reliable source in any content process; now we're going to use it as a basis for an FL? The talk page of the article we have on it doesn't fill me with confidence.
Myspace (ref 11) is definitely unreliable. If it's a magazine site, you're better off citing a hard copy of the magazine, rather than linking to something so questionable.
Wordpress and Blogspot (refs 16 and 17) are also unreliable. The newspaper reprint could have copyright issues if the site didn't have permission to post the article; you're again better off using an offline cite to the paper. As for personal blogs, I see several cites to personal websites, and this bothers me. The best we can do for an allegedly controversial topic, which by association carries possible BLP problems, is personal websites? Too few of the people listed are cited to strong secondary sources.
IMDB (refs 18 and 20) is perhaps marginally reliable for basic information on movies. For biographical details, it's not reliable.
I'd also like to know what makes any of the following reliable sources: bloggamy.com (ref 3), AERO News (ref 4), csethna.com (ref 13), Beliefnet (ref 14), smodcastle.com (ref 27), Cleveland Scene (ref 29).

I'm not even taking into account that the lead is short and completely uncited. On the basis of the sourcing alone, this is nowhere close to FL status. I'd suggest withdrawing this FLC and coming back when the weak sources have been removed and replaced by cites that are more reliable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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