Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of artiodactyls/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, 17 January 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of artiodactyls[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PresN 00:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back again with another animal list! This time we're covering all genera in the order Artiodactyla, meaning most animals with hooves that aren't horses, and also whales/dolphins because evolution is weird sometimes. Just like I capped the 9 family lists of the order Carnivora (felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids/herpestids/pinnipeds) with list of carnivorans, this one caps off the 3 lists I've done for Artiodactyla (cervids/suines/bovids) with one for the entire order (as well as one FL, list of cetaceans, that wasn't me and predates my entire project). This follows the format of the carnivorans list, including all genera in the entire order (the same way as the narrower lists are "species in a family", just pulled back one level) whether their family is big enough to get their own species list or not. At 132 genera it's around the size as the carnivorans list (though with 50 more species), and reflects all of the comments at the carnivorans FLC. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Antilocapra americana.jpg – Commons licencing claims that the copyright owner has allowed it for for any purpose, but direct source link is not provided. The correct source link appears to be this (image 41 of 169) (direct download). The available image is, same but in a better quality. Though the source page states "Copyright © 2006, Alan D. Wilson", the copyright policy of naturespicsonline.com state that any of the image from the gallery can be used under "Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" licence. Please correct the licence, and if possible, update the image with the better version.
  • License fixed; left the version as it was cropped.
  • Swapped out the image for one with a correct license
  • Updated.
  • Rest, Flickr images are fine. Good faith assumed on "own works" images. Maps not checked, as I believe all of them are own works.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other reviews[edit]

Comments
  • Second use of "forbs" is linked rather than the first
  • Neritic and intertidal marine are both linked on the second use
  • Under rangifer, forbs is randomly linked again and sedges is randomly linked for the first time having already been used loads of times
  • Forbs linked again under catagonus
  • Mesopelagic fish linked twice in quick succession under the dolphins
  • Intertidal linked again under sousa
  • That's all I got. So basically a few items linked in the wrong place and a few items randomly linked more than once. Fantastic work overall!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a long one!
  • The listing of extinct species in Classification seems duplicative having just be listed at the end of the lead
  • Mammal Species of the World should have a footnote ref too
  • "are bovids, and" no comma
  • When there's only one species in a genus, Size range could just be Size and the habitat and diet singular
  • Beautiful list as usual. Reywas92Talk 18:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • It looks like most of these tables have already been reviewed at FLC in some form.
  • There isn't enough overlap with Even-toed ungulate to constitute a problem with FLC criterion #3c.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table; Elaphurus, for instance, redirects to Père David's deer, which is fine, as long as that's your intention.
  • 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 actual 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. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – All of the (large number of) citations appear to be reliable and formatted well, and no issues were identified by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:22, 15 January 2022 (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_artiodactyls/archive1&oldid=1066137421"