Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of hominoids/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, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of hominoids

[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PresN 01:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next up in our journey of animal lists, we another list of primates (#32 in our series of animal FLCs). This list is the third of the six-ish subgroupings of the order Primates, following the lorisoids and cercopithecoids, and is another superfamily. This one you may recognize: it's us! Hominoidea (hominoids) contains Hominidae (hominids) contains Homo (humans), so there we are in our fur-less glory, which really does set us apart visually, and never mind the bipedalism. Besides humans, we have 27 species of gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas, aka "apes". This one wasn't as hard to source, and is mostly filled out with pictures- people seem to care a bit more about our close relatives then they do about the endless minor varieties of southeast Asian monkeys. As always, the list follows the pattern of the previous lists and reflects previous FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat

[edit]

The human list, I see! Nice to know the IUCN hasn't bothered to assess H. s. sapiens. (I have some confabulated memory of it once being "Least concern"?). I'll make a full read later, but a query: is this intentionally a list exclusive to extant families? Sorry if this is an obvious question; I haven't seen so many of the prior lists. It may be worth making it a little more explicit in the lead, though I'm unsure if FLC prohibits breaking the fourth wall that way, so to speak? I can read the "sorry, we don't know well enough" undertone in the lead after I stopped jumping around and read through it, but I'm not sure if every reader would read this implication well enough, and in the absence of an explication the absence of Neandertals et al stands out. Vaticidalprophet 13:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all the prior lists restricted themselves to extant species and species that went extinct post-1500 CE. The reasoning being that paleontological taxonomy is extremely unstable and decentralized. I have more extensive lists of fossil cats that some paleo databases, for example, and paleontologists frequently disagree over what species and genera are valid or not, and the apparent consensus can change without warning. Oh, and new species, genera, and even higher-level taxa are named every year. Some earlier lists did have fossil taxa sections, which have since been removed as unmaintainable. SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the "The twenty-eight extant species of Hominoidea" line that starts the second paragraph is supposed to indicate that this does not include prehistoric species, and then Classification starts with "The superfamily Hominoidea consists of two extant families: Hominidae and Hylobatidae." And yeah, the IUCN doesn't evaluate humans (or domesticated "pet" animals like cats or dogs, actually). --PresN 15:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)\[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk
  • Added, though I note that this is not a required template and I don't know why you want it added? All it does is add a category to the article.
  • Not sure how other FLs look, but I think "Conventions" would make more sense just above the tables
  • It's in that order (for this and the other lists) because it explains why the IUCN codes (which are used in the template on the right, which due to text length needs to be in the first text section, not the second) and what the daggers mean (which can be included in the Classification section), so it has to go before that section
  • A lot of the sfns lack years, but it is (to my knowledge) standard to include them
  • The only requirement is to be consistent. I'm not using Sfn, but even if I was it only marks the name as required, not the year. Some standard referencing styles may require a year always, but as per WP:CITESTYLE Wikipedia does not conform to any one style guide.

PresN, I got nothing else, great job as usual MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: replied inline. --PresN 20:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AK
  • "hominoids, or apes" maybe drop the comma?
  • Dropped
  • "They range in size...including limbs" I can't quite put my finger on why but this sentence reads a bit weird.
  • Yeah, maybe because "limbs" is a weird word? I feel like I should put something, though- for animal lengths in general, the "size" is the head-body length, which doesn't include legs... but like humans, gorillas sometimes walk upright, and for humans we count the leg lengths in our overall size. If I don't include that bit, then I'm saying that the biggest hominid is shorter than a lot of humans. Open to alternate wording suggestions!
  • Does citing human habitat and diet fall under SKYISBLUE? I feel like it probably does.
  • Yeah, that was my thought
  • Link truffles?
  • Done
Image review
  • All images are correctly licensed and used.
  • Human range map is technically depicting population density, not distribution, as noted in the Human article.
  • True, though that's even better - added a note to the caption
  • The photo for humans is low quality, but I don't want to get involved in that flamewar, so no need to change it.
  • Yeah, I'm staying out of that one too
  • The Hainan black crested gibbon photo is basically just a silhouette; we don't have great options, but maybe a screengrab from this would be better?
  • Because of the terrible video quality and shaky camera, any screengrab would be a blurry mess that only shows half of the gibbon... I'm not happy with the silhouette, but I think that would be worse.
Comments by SilverTiger

Well, I held off to give others a chance to comment, but since it looks like one is still needed, I'll give it a look-see. I don't expect to have many comments.

  • aside from humans, the only exception is the eastern hoolock gibbon, which is classified as vulnerable.
  • There's a bit of an image issue what with the two range maps, the opening image, the Red List box, and the cladogram. On my screen, the cladogram is pushed down far enough that it sits on the left below the species list, which doesn't look great. And the Red List box is pushed down below the Conventions section where it normally sits. Would it be possible to get the two range maps to sit horizontally beside each other instead of vertically? Or you could request a combined range map be made for all non-human hominoids, and note that humans are found on every continent, everywhere, in the caption.
  • All sources look trustworthy and there's no copyvio, so pass on that.

And that's it. Nice work as always. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:40, 25 September 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_hominoids/archive1&oldid=1179265043"