Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2017 in professional wrestling/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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

2017 in professional wrestling[edit]

Featured list candidates/2017 in professional wrestling/archive1

Nominator(s): Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) ~ 08:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every major promotion (especially WWE) is detailed accurately and is sourced appropriately. It is also a significant improvement over its predecessor. Please feel free to give your opinion and state why/why not this should be a featured list. Thanks.

Comment - This probably should have been brought to peer review first. I've just scanned the article, but a few things stood out to me. The lead needs to be fleshed out per WP:LEAD, a lot of the article lacks sources, and there are some MOS problems. For example, per WP:HEADER, headings should not be wikilinked. AAA's title matches section is blank. Nikki♥311 13:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Object - 2017 is not over and this is not even updated through November 2017. Not FL level at present. MPJ-DK 18:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's the big catch; when you say "every major pro wrestling promotion", you put the most well known promotions from the US, Japan and Mexico. But what about the the other promotions across those countires and the rest of the world? Nickag989^talk 20:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - one-sentence lead, WWE title matches are completely unsourced, and CMLL anniversary show is still showing as TBC even though it took place nearly two months ago. That's enough for me to oppose, I'm afraid.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Too many problems for me as well. Wait until 2017 is over then give it another shot. But I agree that this should've been brought to peer review first. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, premature. --Pres N 19:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.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.