Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication/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 promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication

List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication/archive1

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after over 1,500 edits and over 500 references added I think I've finally brought it to FL quality. While this is a dynamic list, I firmly believe it contains as comprehensive a list of all notable persons who can be reliably sourced to have died from overdose or acute intoxication as is currently possible. In populating this list I have decided to be as inclusive as possible so as to not be accused of overlooking anybody. I anticipate several people on the list will be challenged, and have no issues with anyone being removed if their cause of death is deemed to not clearly meet the criteria. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinator: While two people are opposing this nomination, I have attempted to address all of their concerns, have pinged them back here and have even left message on their talk pages, but for unknown reasons neither has replied. Please keep this in mind when deciding whether to promote the article or not, as I do not think it is fair to leave an oppose comment but not follow it up once the reasons for opposing have been fixed. Freikorp (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a quick comment, since this list is about people who died, I think it would benefit the article to have a small image gallery of some of the most famous people on this list, and remove the picture showing an injection of heroin. Mattximus (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Thanks for your comment. I'm not exactly sure what this gallery you would like look should look like. Do you mean a collection of images under the lead like at List of municipalities in Wyoming? Or having them running down the right hand side, like at the List of people who follow a straight edge lifestyle? Or is there another way you think would work better? Freikorp (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer down the right side, however this does give users with small screens some issue if the table doesn't format correctly. A gallery would also be good. If this was "list of recreational drugs" then that picture of someone injecting heroin is perfect. However this is a list of people, not drugs, so you should have pictures of people, especially in the lead. Mattximus (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Have a look at this gallery at my sandbox. Is that what you're after? I figured it would be good to add some text info about the deaths. As per the discussion below, additional columns have been requested for this table. The longer 'Cause of death' texts are already taking up several lines on my 13-inch screen on it is. Adding those columns and a column of images down the right head side will make the table very annoying to read on smaller screens. I don't think that's a good idea, but i'm happy to ditch the current image and have a gallery of some kind. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah something like that looks good, and we should do a gallery as you are correct, smaller screens will have trouble. I do like how the table is now sortable, it is easy to see, for example, all authors who overdosed. Mattximus (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A gallery of 10 of the more famous deaths has now been added. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think (a) it ought to be sortable, by name (using {{sortname}}, life, profession; (b) it ought to have columns (which should also be sortable) for nationality and drug involved. As it is, the list can't really be interrogated for information - if I'm interested in seeing which musicians have died in this way, or who on the list has died from heroin overdose, I can't do this. Bencherlite^Talk 09:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bencherlite: Thanks for your comment. The article is currently broken into subsections by letter. If I used this sortname template, I assume people would only be able to sort each letter at a time. Am I mistaken? Is this what you want? Or do you think I should scrap the alphabetised subsections altogether and just have one massive table? Freikorp (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clearer but you guessed what I was after - one large table. Bencherlite^Talk 12:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bencherlite: Questions now that the table is sortable:

I've split the table to have seperate 'Born' and 'died' columns, instead of just 'Life & Death', so readers can search for both. Considering how much space is left, and how it may display on smaller screens, do you still think adding a 'Nationality' column is a good idea?

Do you think I should be more broad with profession titles? Like condensing 'Drummer' and 'Guitarist' to Musician? 'Writer' and 'Novelist' to just Writer? Etc etc. That way more people will appear under certain titles when the table is sorted by profession.

I don't think a column that specifies the drug used is going to be very helpful. A large number of entrants are listed as 'Unspecified', and in many other there are multiple drugs and they are listed in no particular order, i.e 'Cocaine, alcohol and barbiturates' 'Barbiturates, alcohol and marijuana' etc etc. Keeping the column as it is (Cause of death) isn't overly helped by being sortable either. There are too many variables. i.e causes of death 'Fell and bled to death while under the influence of alcohol' or 'Crews was legally drunk when he crashed a boat, killing himself and Steve Olin'. Some drugs will get sorted together, others will be spread all over. I think it should just be left as it is though, unless you have a better suggestion. Freikorp (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – at the moment, this list falls well short of our ??Featured list criteria in my opinion. Particularly with regards to the thoroughness of the referencing, and the sortability of the table. Ialso think that on a list of this size, the lead could be more substantial; specifically with regards to providing more global statistics, and simply a bit more background – is there anything about why this is such a common cause of death? Harrias ^talk 12:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "deaths from drug overdoses raised 137% in the United States" – Surely this should be "deaths from drug overdoses rose 137% in the United States"?  Done
• Are there any, more global, stats? The lead, and indeed the list, have a very US-centric feel.

Acknowledged about the lead. I'll work on this once I've addressed your other concerns. As far as the list itself being US-centric, I can assure you I have not deliberately given any preference to US deaths. I went through Category:Drug-related deaths and added every single person in that category that met the criteria (and that I was able to find a reliable source for) to the list. If you go through the sub-categories you will see there is a much higher rate of US people added to the category. I presume this is due to a combination of the English Wikipedia being mainly US-centric in itself, but also due to the fact that the US has higher rates of drug abuse than other developed nations.

@Harrias: I've added some new sources and expanded the lead to address this. Have a look. I've now made an attempt to address all of your concerns. Freikorp (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Name column should sort by surname.

Ok, I've never played with a sortable table before until Bencherlite asked me to turn this list into one so I'm struggling with anythign table related. Is there a particular way to make it sortable by surname?

• Per MOS:DTT, the table needs row and column scopes to be accessible.

Can you give me an example of this at another article? I don't understand.

• For both of these, take a look at List of centuries scored on Test cricket debut for example.
• {{sortname}} is used to sort by surname (for example, {{sortname|Charles|Bannerman}} and {{sortname|Harry|Graham|Harry Graham (cricketer)}}
•  ! scope="row" | is used in the table to define the row scope, while  ! scope="col" | does the same for the column headers. Harrias ^talk 14:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias. I tested the changes to the first 3 people in the list, see here: [2]. Is this done correctly? I can't figure out why the text went bold, so I think I've done something wrong. If I have, would you be able to do the first one properly so I know how to format all the rest? Feel free to revert it once your done if you want. Freikorp (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was fine; I've added "plainrowheaders" into the table code, which stops it make them bold. Harrias ^talk 09:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) I'll work on your lead concerns tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Make the Ref column unsortable.  Done
• Similarly, some work should be done so that the unknown, or estimated dates sort roughly right.  Done
• Some of the details for Fran Papasedero are in the wrong columns.  Done
• Some are listed as being poisoned: where is the line drawn? Why is Socrates included, but not all the people in Category:People executed by lethal injection?

Socrates is one of the few deaths I didn't add, but as per my introduction I've tried to be as inclusive as possible until I get some feedback from others. Before I began my recent overhaul of this article the lead actually had the disclaimer for several years that deaths from lethal injection are not included, see here [3] . I've re-added a similar disclaimer to the current lead and have removed Socrates as he was the only person sentenced to execution via a drug on the list. I've actually been considering making a 'List of deaths from lethal injection', once I'm finished here and with another project I'm working on.

• References: make sure all date formats match. Most are MMM DD, YYYY, but some are DD MMM YYYY.  Done
• A number of the references are missing author details. (167, 170, 173 (AP), 174 (United Press), 181 just to list a few I glanced at; I assume there are lots more.) Harrias ^talk 12:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the ones you mentioned, minus the AP and UP ones. I've never previously been told to give author credit to AP or UP, even at FAC level. Are you absolutely certain this is a requirement? Personally I don't see much point but I'll do it if I have to. I'll start going through each source one by one and making sure they have author credit once you reply.

Not so bothered on the agency ones; you can use the |agency= parameter of the citation template, but as I say, you're right that it is less important than when there is a named author. Harrias ^talk 14:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added all named authors. Will work on the table stuff later. Freikorp (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias. Thanks so much for your comments. I've addressed some concerns and made replies to others. I need some clarification on a couple things before I put serious effort into overhauling this. In particular I'm at a bit of a loss for most of the sortable table stuff, so if you could even point me in the direction of another editor who might be willing to help I would appreciate it. I've always had trouble with tables themselves. Freikorp (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias. Just a reminder I've attempted to address all of your concerns now. Any further feedback is appreciated, Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Just pinging you one last time as per my above comment. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: I know I said I wouldn't ping you again, but I'm finding it incredible frustrating that the only people who aren't supporting this nomination are the ones who haven't replied after I made attempts to address all of their concerns. If you could take a look at this article again, and let me know whether I've adequately addressed your concerns or not, I would really appreciate it. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The biggest problem is defining the scope.

• Time period - the list has few entries from other than the 20th - 21st centuries. This is inevitable, since the concept of "drug overdose" is modern, and few would have applied it before the 20th century. The ancient items seem very speculative. Perhaps the few from history could be removed/split, and the scope specified further.

As I've written this almost entirely by myself, I've been largely waiting for feedback regarding scope. I have absolutely no problems with narrowing it to modern times, and adding information to the lead regarding this, if that will help obtain support. If you tell me exactly what you'd like to see here in order to address this concern I'll happily implement the changes. In the meantime I've removed the only ancient candidate, which means deaths run entirely from the 18th to 21st centuries.

• "Cause of Death" is not the precise criterion implied by its medical/legal status, given the reluctance to apply "drug overdose" to those with high social status. How many heart attacks were ODs? How many accidents reported without referring to intoxication? This is shown in the use of "suspected" in many entries. I do not think this problem is fixable.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would be nicer if we could have the 'legal' cause of death as per everybody's death certificate, but as you point out this is not possible. We're making do with information that is publicly accessible. As the lead indicates, this is a list of people who can be "reliably sourced" to either meet the criteria or be suspected to. My intention is to build a list that is an accurate and comprehensive reflection of its lead. Obviously there are some people who did die from overdoses that would have had this information covered up, but I don't think that should prohibit this article from being promoted. I'm quite sure many celebrities would have concealed/be concealing their HIV status, but we still have a featured list of HIV-positive people. I can see many other examples of lists that may technically be incomplete, but still represent the best we can do with sources that meet WP:RS.

I don't mean that this list is not a worthy enterprise, only that the nature of the topic does not lend itself to achieving Featured status. The problem is that even limiting the scope to people with WP articles who died in the 20th century or later; I would not be surprised if for each drug-related death for which there is a WP:RS there was another not so reported, but covered up by a "sympathetic" doctor. Perception that cover-ups are infrequent is biased by recent history, now that tabloid/online journalism makes such discretion difficult to maintain. Perhaps this bias is already evident in the current list, which is skewed towards entertainers and sports celebrities. (I also agree, as stated above, Sigmund Freud's assisted suicide cannot remain on the list without opening up another can of worms.)--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input. I'll wait to see what consensus forms regarding completeness. Personally I don't see this as a major problem, as the article has the dynamic list disclaimer and advertises itself only as a list of reliably sources overdoses, rather than all potential overdoses. Anyway I was anticipating euthanasia deaths complicating things, so I've just removed Sigmund Freud and all the other euthanasia deaths. Freikorp (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WriterArtistDC: I've added a paragraph to the lead explaining some facts regarding why overdoses are a more recent phenomenon. Have a look and let me know if you think this addresses your concerns. There have been several improvements to the article since you last commented. Freikorp (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Quite strongly. While there are always nitpicks and each of us has preferences, this list is quite important. Very simply, there is no other list like it anywhere on the Internet. This is Wikipedia at its finest. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think age would be much more interesting than birth year and death year. Perhaps include all three. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Ages have now been added. Freikorp (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I agree that age at time of death is interesting and should be in a column. My feeling is that Featured does not equal "perfect", and so that it is possible for this article to be as complete as possible to the knowledge and consensus of all reviewing it...and then it can be added to. I think it looks promising with some queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drug overdose and intoxication are a significant cause of accidental death, - "causes" as they are not the same...?  Done

For example, the chance of death from opiate overdose is greatly increased when they are consumed in conjunction with alcohol - technically correct but looks weird with singular "opiate" and plural "they"  Done

drug chemical names like diazepam and tramadol are lower case.  Done

the result of drug overdoses or acute drug intoxication - plural/singular - align them  Done

deaths will be specified as 'suicide', 'accidental', 'undetermined', or otherwise. - "are specified"  Done

Thanks for your comments Casliber. I've addressed the lead concerns. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions or concerns. Now that two people have provided feedback that an age column is wanted, I'll make it happen sometime soon. Freikorp (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like the other reviewer above, I did wonder about the recentism of the page. Then I looked and was unable to find more ancient suicides (I presume you've looked). I think this can't just sit there unaddressed. Either we have some medieval/ancient deaths or we have some sourced reason for lack of same. This has me curious now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you I looked for ancient overdose sources. The only two I found were the two I have since removed from the article (Promachus of Macedon and Socrates, who probably shouldn't be counted anyway since it was an execution). Perhaps if I spent a lot more time searching I could find a handful of ancient 'poisoning' deaths that meet the criteria, but nevertheless I think deaths from overdoses are inherently linked to two recent developments in addition to tabloid/online journalism - the rise of the Pharmaceutical industry, and fallout from the ridiculously counter-productive War on drugs. I think this issue would be best addressed with some kind of source commenting on overdoses as the relatively recent phenomenon that they are as caused by these or other causes, but I've yet to find such a source. Freikorp (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you look off Socrates (as hemlock is primarily a poison), but why did you remove the other one? Also drugs such as opium/laudanum/morphine and alcohol have been around since antiquity. I will try to look into this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It just looked too out of place. A single ancient alcohol poisoning and then the next chronological death being over 2000 years later.

Oh yeah I understand, there would have been plenty of alcohol and opium poisoning deaths between then and the 19th century (when this list effectively begins), but as the other editor pointed out such deaths would have either been covered up, and/or simply forgotten about without an effective media. I'll have a further look into a solution for this myself in the coming days. Thanks for your interest and willingness to help. I am very keen to implement any improvements to this article. Freikorp (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have removed it just because it looked out of place. Good luck finding things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I think I've made a pretty solid paragraph addressing the recentism. Have a look and tell me what you think. Freikorp (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks a lot better. One outstanding problem is the note on tramadol, which comes from the opinion of one pathologist. There must be some stats somewhere we can use instead. I'd dispute the fact as well (about tramadol) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Found a few new stats and sources. Freikorp (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great/thanks for that. Just realized one last thing - the coffee quote - maybe add "extremely" rare. I mean, we'd say deaths from bee stings and shark attacks are rare but are a hell of a lot commoner than deaths from caffeine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Done. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...in which case, tentative support (an ambitious and interesting list to put together. Good luck) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Syntax looks fine to me but I would get rid of the "Ref" column and instead put the reference on the cause of death. I would also recommend using Template:sfn for citing books or journals for the convenience of the reader looking for data to cite. Vami IV (talk) 06:42, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support. I'll wait to hear more opinions regarding the ref column; I'm inclined to leave it how it is. Template:Sfn is a good idea in general, but as I cite several hundred books and journals I'm not sure if using it is just going to make the reference section more complicated than it has to be. I'd like to hear more opinions on this also before making a decision. Freikorp (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This was an ambitious list to improve, and I'm sure that, when it's promoted, it will set the standard for similar lists.

• My main issue is with the layout of the table, which I don't think is set out in a way that would most benefit the reader. For example, it seems to me that a reader would be more likely to, say, sort all the suicides together, or sort all the heroin overdoses together, rather than sort all the American football players together. I propose splitting the "Cause of death" column into new columns, e.g. "Drug(s)", "Accidental/Suicide" and "Notes", which would give our readers more freedom with how they choose to view the list. I recognise that this would be a major change to the list and a lot of work – I am happy to help if you need it.

• Thanks for your comments A Thousand Doors, and for your offer of help, which I will gladly accept if this suggestion ends up being implemented. While that is a good suggestion in theory, I'm not sure how helpful it will be in practice.

Firstly regarding the "Drug(s)" column: I don't think that will be a major improvement on what we have now. The 'Cause of death' column already largely sorts people by the drug responsible for their death because of the consistent way I have tried to word every listing. I.e it's always "Heroin overdose" as opposed to, say "overdose of heroin". Secondly many deaths involve multiple drugs - which drug do we list first? A "Drug(s)" column is going to have the same problem that the current 'Cause of death' column has - when multiple drugs are involved only the one that happens to be listed first will be sorted.

Secondly regarding the "Accidental/Suicide" column: most candidates don't have any such intent listed, so if we have an "Accidental/Suicide" column most of them will be empty, and I think that would make the table/article look incomplete when in reality often there's no reliable sources that gives an indication of whether it was accidental or not. Granted a large portion of these, based on their context, would be safely assumed to be accidents but I'm hesitant to put that in the table without a source that explicitly states that is the case. Also "Accidental/Suicide" wouldn't be a good title as there are other options, I.e "undetermined", "murder", "involuntary manslaughter" etc etc. Let me know what you think about my concerns. Freikorp (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it would be a shame not to have that information in a separate column – "Accidental" is listed in the table over 80 times, while "Suicide" is listed over 160 times. I continue to believe that being able to sort these deaths together would be more useful to a reader than being able to sort by profession. For deaths where we don't know the "reason" behind them, perhaps just "Unknown" would work. But I would have thought that, in most cases, the cause of an overdose would be either an accident, purposeful (i.e. suicide), or murder. I am willing to accept that I might be in the minority on this issue. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad idea. I've already literally spend weeks redesigning the table to address other people's concerns. Someone else suggested a 'Nationality' column, which also isn't a bad idea, but I declined to take that on as with the other new columns I created I think having a column with completely new additional information would make the table appear too bunched up on smaller screens. Considering the information you'd like to have put into this new column is already in the table I'm more willing to take it on. Would you be willing to help? If not, I'd rather wait for a third opinion before taking on that much work myself. Freikorp (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your problem is that, since nobody has ever nominated a list like this before, there's no precedent yet for what it should look like and what information it should contain. Still, that's all the more reason to nominate it. My "vision" for how the table could look would be something like this. Let me know what your thoughts are. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks decent. I'd like to get a third opinion. Casliber, what do you think of this proposed table format? (See here) Freikorp (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I like that alternate table quite a lot actually. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Casliber. Ok A Thousand Doors, how do you want to do this? Shall we just keep building it letter by letter in your sandbox then copy paste it over? Also if we're going to go through and rebuild this table person by person I'd like to consider implementing an idea from another reviewer who suggested switching to Template:sfn for the book sources. Or at least for the ones with page numbers specified separately in the ref column (see Erik Brødreskift's entry if you don't understand what I mean). If nothing else it will make the ref column narrower, which is important now that there are going to be additional columns. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Bs, Cs and Ds now done. Haven't tacked the Sfn suggestin just yet. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Like others have said, I'm a little concerned that the use of a gallery may violate WP:IG – how does such a gallery of so many images help the reader's understanding of deaths by drug overdose and intoxication? I have an alternate suggestion, but it'll have to wait 'til I'm back at home (which will be in a few hours).

• This is what the article looked like at the time of nomination: [4]. I originally had that image and an editor above questioned the relevance of a picture of someone shooting heroin and instead requested a gallery like the one we now have. Personally I don't care very much which images the article has, or if it has no images at all. I'm pretty much going to go with whatever I need to do to get support for the nomination. I will gladly remove this gallery if that's what you'd like, though I am looking forward to hearing your alternate suggestion. Freikorp (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that images of individuals in the list makes more sense than one of someone injecting heroin. But, rather than having a gallery, what do you think to having a lead image like this?:

• Wow I never considered doing something like that. I think it's a great idea, certainly better than the other two options at least. I'll implement the changes now. Thanks for the suggestion. Freikorp (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• More comments coming.

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors your final comment here was more than ten days ago, is it true? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Freikorp and I have been completely redoing the table format over the last couple of weeks (see here). We've made some progress, but I'll leave it to you to decide whether this nomination should remain open until we're done, or whether it should be closed and reopened at a later date. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 08:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors, since we've finished the new table format and it's live now, can you please make your final comments on the nomination? Thanks again. Freikorp (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is the best an article like this will get. Well done, this should be shown off. Meets FL criteria. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man:. Right, so I have 4 votes of support. A Thousand Doors pretty much said he'd support the nomination once the table reformat was complete, which it now is, but he hasn't edited Wikipedia since July 1 so he appears to be unaware his concerns are addressed. I've got two people opposing, however, as previously stated, I have addressed all of their concerns, pinged them back here, and left messages on their talk pages, but for unknown reasons, neither of them appears interested in following up their initial comments. They are opposing a very much outdated version of this page and refusing to rejoin the discussion. How am I doing in terms of having this article promoted? Should I go and solicit more comments or considering the circumstances can this be passed as is? Freikorp (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A prodigious level of work from Freikorp, this article is now worthy of the bronze star. My issue surrounding which drugs should be wikilinked can be addressed later, and isn't something that I'd oppose over. Nice working with you! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WriterArtistDC, Harrias, the list has been substantially improved since your comments, would you please re-visit your oppositions and either confirm you still oppose or strike/support please? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors, please double-check your concerns have been addressed and respond here if at all possible. Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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.