Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of regular polytopes
- 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: 11 days, 0 support, 3 oppose. No attempts to meet the opposition. Fail. Crzycheetah 17:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This page was created by Mike40033 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 12 September 2007
- Comment: You should leave some kind of comment about the FLC. -- Scorpion0422 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It-burns-my-eyes oppose
- Far too jargonic to be understandable for most people, even those with more mathematical knowledge (heck, I got most of Polar coordinates at FAC, but this has me utterly stumped). The lead fails to even give a readable layman definition of polytope.
- Overgrown table of Content
- Too many redlinks in the larger tables
- See also section bloated with unnecessary links.
- Unbolded lead topic
- And so on. Circeus 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose For all of the reasons above. It also doesn't help that there are no individual citations at all. -- Scorpion0422 03:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, since there is no other reason to have entries be cited individually here (unlike e.g. the lists of LGBT people), we have a firmly established precedent that general citations are fine for lists (and they have the advantage of being more manageable for use: see Discoveries of the chemical elements). Circeus 16:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose Very jargonistic, but to a certain extent I can understand a list like this being a little dense. A bit more layman explanations would go along way. Also, the lead is really choppy and full of one-sentence paragraphs. Drewcifer 19:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]