Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of fictional books

List of fictional books[edit]

I believe this list meets all the criteria and deserves inclusion. It's useful, comprehensive, well-written, accurate, has a nice intro, and is on a topic of interest to readers and bibliophiles. ~~(Please note that the talk page for this list redirects to Talk:Fictional book, I'm not sure why, so the Featured List nomination has been placed on that page.)~~ fixed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bookgrrl (talk • contribs) 04:32, 11 November 2006.

There was a redirect from Talk:List of fictional books to Talk:Fictional book. I've removed it but I haven't moved any text between the talk pages. Perhaps you are best placed to work out which discussions go where. Colin°^Talk 08:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Doesn't have a single reference, has a very bad structure, and has a single image (without a fair use rationale). Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - no references, no inclusion criteria, authors are only American or English, ugly ugly format... Renata 14:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of references are needed? Both authors and books are provided; does it need page numbers or something more specific? --Bookgrrl 16:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - poor layout, inconsistent linking, unclear inclusion criteria but I note that the list is not only American or English authors as Renata claimed (Borges, Lem, Eco, Nabokov, Rabelais, etc.). Rmhermen 18:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: Certainly useful, but terrible formatting, no references, and not even that good of a list. I mean, when ou list "fictional books" and only list a few authors, you don't even mention the criteria of being on the list or anything. Tough to say if this kind of list could EVER reach featured quality. --Wizardman 18:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]