Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of afrosoricids/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of afrosoricids

Featured list candidates/List of afrosoricids/archive1

Nominator(s): Pres N 01:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a break for some other lists for a few months, the animals are back! Here is number 23 in our ongoing journey of animal list FLCs (10 lists for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, 3 lists for Lagomorpha, and 1 each for Perissodactyla, Cingulata, Didelphimorphia, Scandentia, and Macroscelidea). We continue on through the last few of the single-list orders with one for Afrosoricida, a group of insect-eating shrew-y, mole-y mammals in sub-Saharan Africa, plus the tenrecs of Madagascar. They actually used to be in one big order with the shrews and moles, actually, but in the late 90s genetic research started to be a thing, so it got split off as they were less similar than they looked. Unfortunately, a lot of these afrosoricids don't have pictures (a common problem with small animals that hide in remote forests), but some of the ones we do have are pretty neat- the giant golden mole from the lead images has no eyes, while the lowland streaked tenrec down near the bottom is bright yellow and black and looks like it got an electric shock. The science is up to date and the formatting reflects prior FLCs, so hopefully it should be all good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 01:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment, but the absence or presence of parentheses around an author citation is semantically important -- you have no parentheses across the board when in some cases it is meaningfully incorrect to not have them, so double check all of those. Umimmak (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Umimmak: Huh. You know, in the 3.5 years I've been doing this no one has ever mentioned that? I went looking and figured out what you meant (what it says in author citation (zoology), right?). As far as I can tell there's no guidance whatsoever in the MOS about this and Wikipedia articles are inconsistent in the article bodies, though the infoboxes do have it. The IUCN doesn't list author citations at all, but ASM does seem to actually follow this, so I've gone ahead and adjusted the templates to support it and then filled it in for this list; I guess I'll be going back and adjusting prior lists as well to match. --Pres N 17:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also a minor thing but I think you should be specifically citing Bronner & Jenkins since they actually are the authors of the chapter; yes Wilson (& Reeder why is she not mentioned?) edited the volume, but Bronner & Jenkins are who are directly responsible for the information you're citing. See {{MSW3 Afrosoricida}} for how this chapter is standardly cited on Wikipedia. Ditto for Mammals of Africa, you're specifically citing chapters written by G.N.Bronner but he isn't in your citation at all, just the editors of the book. Maybe this falls under WP:CITEVAR, though? Umimmak (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Umimmak: Fixed, thanks! The actual reason for the problems with the MSW cite are that I don't really use it directly for these lists, I use an online text copy of just the hierarchy as input to a program that generates the tables and then find what pages in the book would correspond with that, so I didn't catch that the sections had authors beyond the editors. (No excuse for not including Reeder, though, I must have copied the citation originally from an article that didn't have her on it). Mammals of Africa, on the other hand, I ran out of free google books pages, so I didn't see that the chapter had a separate author. Now fixed- CITEVAR probably covers it, but I do think it's important to cite the correct people. --Pres N 01:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you send me a WikiMail I can just send you the relevant chapters from Mammals of Africa? Umimmak (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"They range in size from the least shrew tenrec, at 4 cm (2 in) plus a 6 cm (2 in) tail" - I guess this is a rounding issue (the two different metric values converting to an identical imperial value)......?
"the exact number and categorization is not fixed" - should that be "the exact number and categorization are not fixed" (plural subject)?
Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Yeah, 4cm = 1.57in, and 6cm = 2.36in, so they both round to 2 inches. Fixed the is/are thing; I think both are technically fine, but are sounds a bit better. --Pres N 16:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Don't really follow the block of text above about referencing but I am sure you will resolve it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
Agreed with Chris on the above.
Checking the FLC criteria:
1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the tables.
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. At a glance, the images seem fine. I haven't checked the maps; those are usually fine. The file description of File:Eremitalpa granti.jpg says that the image quality isn't the best, but the quality seems more than acceptable for these purposes.
6. It is stable.
Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger

Disclaimer: I haven't done this before and hardly know what I'm doing.

1. The writing is professional. I went over it with a fine-toothed comb and had no complaints.
2. The lede is well-written and informative. The scope is thankfully clear.
3. It is comprehensive, well-sourced to reliable sources, and definitely worthy of being a stand-alone list.
4. The structure is easily understood and navigated.
- My only issue is that in the second section, the cladogram is being pushed below the list, creating a massive area of whitespace. Could that be adjusted so the two show up side-by-side?
5. The lack of pictures is disappointing, but as was said, small mammals that live in forests aren't exactly frequently photographed. The maps are helpful, and the visual arrangements of the tables are an aid to navigation.
6. Stable: very stable.
Did a spot check of sources - no issues there.

Happy editing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: Fixed the whitespace, I think? Looks like the new vector2022 skin allows for less space than the old one. --Pres N 16:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the old skin, not Vector2022, but it is fixed anyway. Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and no dead links were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 5 March 2023 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 5 March 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.