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 kept by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 19:28:58 18 July 2019 (UTC) [1].

---

Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office[edit]

Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list removal candidates/Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: Matthewedwards, WikiProject Cats, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I don't feel as if it meets the current criteria, having been promoted back in 2008. In particular, it has a failed verification tag, thus failing criterion 3b (Compherensiveness - citation). It also fails criterion 2 (Lead), bringing up stuff about the reign of Henry VIII that is not mentioned in the article. The lead also fails to mention the partisanship study in the body, which might (although this is speculation on my part) be in any case WP:UNDUE weight. It also fails criterion 3 outright by neglecting information between Henry VII's reign and 1929, and has a current recentism tag that is still reasonable. The topic is fun and it gives me no great joy to say this, but overall I feel this article is closer to C-class and would require a fundamental rewrite to reach any sort of Featured status. I'd like to change my !vote to Keep following the recent improvements. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. I disagree that neglecting information between Henry VII's reign and 1929 is an issue—as far as I can see the article makes it reasonably clear that it was only after 1929 that people started considering the name of the local cat significant—but other than that all your points appear to be spot-on. ‑ Iridescent 08:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Switching to keep following rewriting. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist with regret. I think if the history section was expanded to incorporate more about the earlier mousers, we'd be in much better shape, other issues should be relatively easy to solve. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please give me a chance to fix the various issues before possibly removing this List from Featured status. I'll give it a good editing run this week (hoping to be done by July 8th). I'll come back and update this page when I do finish. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, that sounds fair enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've cleaned up the lead, dug into sourcing for specific dates & added some refs, adjusted some of the main text. I'm sure there are more improvements to be made but wanted to mention that I've started in on the work that needed to be done. Shearonink (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks a lot better already. I'm still confused on who "Treasury Bill" was and when he served, but it's shaping up rather nicely so far. Keep up the good work! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! "Treasury Bill" & "Rufus of England" are one and the same. Rufus was nick-named "Treasury Bill" because of stories that circulated about Ramsay MacDonald & the budget...it's all there in Refs 21 & 22 but especially in the Sunday Mail of Australia's July 5th 1930 story about the cat & how he got his nick-name... I've adjusted the wording a bit so hopefully that will now be a bit clearer. Shearonink (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Shearonink has done some work on this article. There is still an uncited statement that prevents me from quite yet switching to keep, but I think such concerns are fairly minor and can reasonably be fixed in the time of an FLRC. I can now vote to keep this article. Iridescent and The Rambling Man, what are your opinions on the list now that it has been improved? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks JMW. Shearonink (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, great work, I've struck my "delist". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks TRM, greatly appreciated. I'm rather fond of this FL and hated to see it possibly get de-listed. It's been a pleasure to work on it. Shearonink (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it correct to actually call this a "list article"? The MoS defines a list article as: encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings) This article has two sections of prose after the intro, then an embedded list. The list represents a pretty small fraction of the article. Also, semantically, I'd say the thing this article is about is a position. It happens to also include a list of holders of that position. Colin M (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point, I guess we can try and take it to FAC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The history section is moderately sized, the other section is small, and the lead is short at one paragraph. The list appears to be just under half the size of the body (on my screen). It's a borderline case, but I wouldn't have a problem considering this a list for our purposes. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been kept, 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.