Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of birds of Wallis and Futuna/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, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of birds of Wallis and Futuna[edit]

List of birds of Wallis and Futuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another Oceanian bird list, did this a while ago but nominating now. AryKun (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • The thing that's the hardest to get for my plant FLCs is the image review, so:
  • Image review: the correct licenses are present, and I can't find any reason to distrust them (which is kind of what image reviewing comes down to). Correct coding (including alt text) is present, and image quality is good. They do a good job of illustrating the list. Pass.
  • Please consider reviewing the very short List of Saxifragales families when it hits FLC (coming soon). Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well ... I better not ask for help with a specific list because I don't know how fast things are going to move (if at all). If you're interested in reviewing any of these, keep an eye out for "List of ... families". - Dank (push to talk) 05:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing:
  • First: I'm really impressed. I think a lot of people don't understand how hard it is to condense biological descriptions this much, while still including critical details and the right amount of interesting details as well. Well done. Better than anything I could do, I think.
  • There's no requirement to put this stuff in a table; that's up to your discretion, and personally, I think what you've got works fine without a table. But be aware that people generally only review what they feel comfortable with, and I've found that FLC reviewers are generaly more comfortable with tables.
    • Most "List of birds by country" lists aren't in tables, since the checklist for birds for any country that isn't a small archipelago is hundreds of species and managing these in a table would be absolutely ridiculous. I guess the lists for the smaller countries could be changed to tables, but I'd like to maintain consistency across the lists.
  • "a unique mound or burrow nests": I'm sympathetic ... you don't want to devote a disproportionate amount of text to any one bird, and that can make it really difficult to make yourself understood. Having said that ... I didn't understand this at all, until I went to the article and saw "a unique strategy of egg incubation in which it relies on environmental heat sources". I think you need to say a little more here.
    • Added some detail.
  • "short thick but pointed bills": "short thick-but-pointed bills" would be better, but I think I prefer something like "short thick bills ending in a sharp point".
    • Reworded.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 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. My image review is above.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little depressing that this one hasn't picked up any more support. We don't have enough biology-aware reviewers at FLC ... but I suspect that some of the reviewers have just overlooked this. You might try reviewing a couple of FLCs; if that doesn't work or if you're not comfortable doing that, then (at the risk of sounding self-serving) come review List of early-diverging flowering plant families, and I'll see if I can drum up a review for this one. - Dank (push to talk) 10:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot to @AryKun. - Dank (push to talk) 10:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon[edit]

  • Add |url-access=subscription to the references (Ref 9, 13, 23-31).
  • Use a consistent date format. Ref 32 has |date=4 March 2020 (dmy format) and |access-date=2022-05-04 (ymd format). Personally, I prefer dmy or mdy format but I'll leave that up to you.

Thats all. -- EN-Jungwon 07:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Source review: version reviewed

  • "Clements, James F.;" and "Lepage, Denis" are listed in Works cited but are not used as inline citations in the article. I suggest using them.
    • Both of these are general references; one is the taxonomy used by the list and the other is the actual list itself. The only way to cite either would be to add redundant citations after every species mentioned, which only adds unnecessary clutter.
      • I don't think a citation is necessary after every entry. I suggested placing this citation here so that readers can click on the footnote and get directed to the book's citation, as the wikilink doesn't necessarily have the citation information. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding Clements's book at the end of the third paragraph.
    • The book itself doesn't cite the third paragraph; the third para merely clarifies which taxonomy we're using in the list. It would be akin to citing a British dictionary after a sentence that says that British English is used in an article.
      • This is similar to my note above. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No concerns with the quality of sources used.
The concerns I express above do not prevent me from passing the source review, but I hope editors still consider finding a way to add these sources as inline citations (to stop the harverror). Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've suppressed the harverrors; I don't think adding superfluous footnotes where they aren't appropriate or citing anything just to reduce the tags created by a couple specific user-scripts is good practice. AryKun (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

  • No concerns with permissions.
  • Alt text used, no px concerns.
  • Captions are fine

Those are my comments. Please ping when these are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dank, EN-Jungwon, and Z1720, I've added a map showing where Wallis and Futuna is because I feel it would be helpful for readers; pinging incase you have any comments about the change. AryKun (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the caption for the map read someone like, "Wallis and Futuna, circled in red, is located north of New Zealand" or something similar. No concerns about the image's permissions. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wallis and Futuna isn't particularly close to New Zealand; it's about as close to Hawaii, Australia, or New Guinea. Readers can see the map and deduce where the islands are by themselves, imo. AryKun (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Wikipedia can assume that readers can deduce what part of the world they are looking at. Another solution might be, "Wallis and Futuna's location in the South Pacific, circled in red" or something similar. Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added South Pacific to the caption (although I question whether we should even try to be catering to readers that are unable to identify the Pacific Ocean and Australia). AryKun (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I support and this passes my source and image checks. Z1720 (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • PresN, this has been open for an awfully long time; are three supports enough? AryKun (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2023 (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_birds_of_Wallis_and_Futuna/archive1&oldid=1152563099"