Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of United Nations peacekeeping missions/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:54, 9 May 2009 [1].

---

List of United Nations peacekeeping missions

• Featured list removal candidates/List of United Nations peacekeeping missions/archive1

Notified: WikiProject International relations, WikiProject United Nations and Dominic.

I actually mentioned these concerns on the article talk page back in February 2008 and they have not been addressed. There are no citations at all on the page. The general source used for this page just links to a general website, nothing specific. Users looking for citations shouldn't have to comb a website for them. Also, I'm not particularily fond of the colour tables or their format. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious what aspect you think needs more sourcing. Being just a listing of the names and related conflicts and locations for peacekeeping missions, there aren't really any claims in the article that aren't self-evident, unless I am mistaken. The colors are a different matter: It's a wiki, feel free to improve them. Dominic·t 22:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite a bit of the lead, several of the notes, etc. Simply adding a link to the main website isn't enough for featured pages any more. As for the table formats, visual appeal and structure are in the FL criteria, so it is an actionable concern. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that some claims in the lead need sourcing with specific citations. The list itself seems to be sourced from the links after each entry: i would prefer foot-noting, which by FL standards would generally include useful info (date, author etc), which is better than clicking on the each link to find out what it is. So MoS and visual appeal do seem to be out of line with current requirments.YobMod 14:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, not only the citations issue (there is a substantial academic literature on the UN): this rich and complex list topic needs a more substantial lead to entice the readers to make more of the list. Can it link to United_Nations#Peacekeeping_and_security somewhere, too? (More specific.) And, just a suggestion, in the table why not pipe-link to the appropriate section rather than the top of the relevant article? Congo_Crisis#UN_military_intervention rather than just Congo_Crisis? Readers can easily scroll up if they want to get a bigger picture. Scorpion, however, might advise otherwise, since I have relatively little experience at FLC. Pity this one can't be saved. Have editors at the UN and associated pages been contacted? Tony (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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