Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of amphibians of Texas/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of amphibians of Texas[edit]

List of amphibians of Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): HAL333 20:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Branching out a little bit, here is my first attempt at a biological list. The most interesting part of this list is probably the salamanders that are only found in Texas Hill Country, and sometimes only in specific cave systems. ~ HAL333([2]) 20:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
  • "Once found througout" - typo
  • "Rhinophrynus is a burrowing ant and termite eater, hence the common name "burrowing frogs"" - I would say "burrowing frog" singular, as it covers only one species
  • "These large salamanders are often mistaken as eels" - can I check that this is US English? Over here we would say mistaken for something, but maybe this is valid US usage
  • "hence the colloquial name "Conger Eels"" - don't think the C and E should be lower case
  • "Salamandrids typically have patterns of bright and contrasting colours" - presume this article is intended to be written in US English, so the last word should not have a U
  • Rio Grande lesser siren has no status, just an orange cell?
Texas lists it as an endangered species within the state, but it's a subspecies, and a contested one at that. And the IUCN doesn't give it a rating. ~ HAL333([3]) 20:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ~ HAL333([4]) 20:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Medusa
  • Order Anura links to a disambiguation page
  • the monotypic Rhinophrynus → italic Rhinophrynus?
  • fore limbs → forelimbs
  • Images have no alt text
Comments from PresN

Ah, heard so much talk and complaining about the Barton Springs salamander (and other members of Eurycea) growing up in Austin, nice to see it.

  • Bolding in the first sentence is unnecessary; doubly so since it's not even the actual title of the article.
  • I find calling out specific species in the lead by their scientific name but not their common name reads oddly.
  • "Eleven amphibian species have been designated as threatened within the state" - by who? Also, citations should go after punctuation marks at least, if not always to the end of the sentence, not just stuck after clauses
  • The red/orange highlighting on cells violates WP:ACCESS- if you're colorblind or are using a screen reader, that information isn't present. You'll need to find some text-based way of indicating that information, either instead of or in addition to the colors.
  • Speaking of WP:ACCESS, the white text on light blue for families is hard to read as a fully-sighted reader; I can't imagine it's easy with poor vision.
  • You have some inconsistencies in capitalization for common names, e.g. "Greenhouse frog" instead of "greenhouse frog". That said, it looks strange to have the mixed capitals to start with with place names vs non; you may consider just always capitalizing the first letter since it's a standalone name
  • For almost the entire list each row is a species, but for Siren intermedia you do subspecies; presumably because Texas calls out one subspecies as threatened. You should be consistent, and if there's an issue like that add have a note, not change the structure of the article. That would clear up the empty status cell, which should be an NE (not evaluated) otherwise
Okay - that was one of the things that I was confused about. I wasn't sure if I could list it as NE since the IUCN doesn't have a page on it. ~ HAL333([6]) 05:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider widening the common name column a hair at the expense of the status or distribution columns so that it doesn't wrap to two+ lines so much
  • You link the common name of each species to the scientific name, which redirects to the common name- it's on purpose, but I don't know why.
I was replicating what the FL List of amphibians of Bulgaria did. I was halfway through when it occurred to me that it was redundant. ~ HAL333([7]) 05:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note A is awkwardly formatted; you should either have each status on its own line or drop the colored blocks and just list the statuses out in prose
I'm sorry - I don't catch your drift. What would "each status on its own line" look like... ~ HAL333([8]) 07:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just had an idea. Would moving the content from note a to the top, like the table with Texas statuses, work? ~ HAL333([9]) 02:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PresN Sorry for the ping, but do you know how I could resolve this? ~ HAL333([10]) 00:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's resolved, see my edit on October 19. --PresN 17:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a section named "Notes and references" subdivided into Notes and... Citations. It should be References- the citation is the in-line bit, the reference is the full work description in this section.
checkYI corrected that, but would that be acceptable in a biographical article where the citations section refers to a "Works cited" section below? ~ HAL333([11]) 23:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's apparently AmphibiaWeb, not Amphibiaweb
  • "Texas parks & Wildlife Department" - parks
  • Be consistent in linking publishers in refs- IUCN gets linked, so the rest should too-United States Geological Survey, etc.
  • IUCN refs all need dois- they're listed on each IUCN page at the top (e.g. "|doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T41630A45210528.en")
  • It's standard in journal cites to use first initial instead of first name- you do so usually, but some of the IUCN cites you're using full name
That was another thing that I was confused about. Sometimes the IUCN gave the full name but other times it just gave the intial. ~ HAL333([12]) 16:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 173 (Animal Diversity Web) is missing the author
  • Super-minor: {{cite iucn}} is a helper template for {{cite journal}}; as a result, you don't need to add archive-urls to it because you're citing a "journal" that has a website archive, rather than citing a transient website. It's a minor difference, and I wouldn't take the time to change it, but for future lists just know you don't need to add the archive.
  • Also minor: if you have an archive for a live page, add |url-status=live to the cite so that the live page is the first link, instead of the very slow archive link.

--PresN 03:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hopefully, I have addressed most of your concerns. I'm a little confused on the the recommendation about changing the statuses. I'm also having some trouble with the coding in ref 129. ~ HAL333([13]) 23:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the tables seems fine. Some sentences need periods, such as "Although there are several poulations throughout the southeast US, this species is only known in Texas from a single specimen collect in Nacogdoches County in 1940"; there are judgment calls to make here, because you're trying to avoid periods when possible, but sometimes avoiding them won't work.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review).
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

  • The references are all to high-quality reliable sources.
  • One formatting nit-pick I have is that the title of ref 7 should have an en dash instead of the present hyphen for style purposes. That's the only issue I was able to find with the formatting.
  • The link-checker tool (and my manual check) shows that the Herps of Texas EL is dead. You should either find an updated link, add an archived version of the link or just remove it. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ~ HAL333 19:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of my sourcing issues have been addressed, so I'd say this source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_amphibians_of_Texas/archive1&oldid=991425073"