Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of pholidotans/archive1

List of pholidotans

Featured list candidates/List of pholidotans/archive1

Nominator(s): Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hello, the name is Wolverine X-eye, a first-timer. I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria. The list is about pangolins, perhaps one of the weirdest creatures out there. They have rough scales around their body, and are the most trafficked animals in the world according to some estimates. And that's all I really have to say about that, so I hope you enjoy it. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Matthewrb

Welcome to FLC, Wolverine X-eye!

This is a new one on me, a FLC that hasn't even been patrolled by NPP yet...

Your lead image needs alt text per MOS:ALT.
- Done
Is there a reason there isn't a "See Also" section? While not required, it would be useful. WP:SEEALSO
Does Commons have a category for this family? I found commons:Category:Manidae after a search. If so, could you add {{Commons category-inline}} to a new External Links section at the bottom of the article so readers can view more pictures if they would like? MOS:ELLAYOUT
- Done
According to Talk:List of manids, this article is classified as a redirect. Is there a reason for that, or should we classify it as list-class?
- It's list-class for me

And finally, this article was blanked and then reverted five minutes later, less than an hour before I started this review. I'm not sure if this violates WP:FL? criteria #6, since it was a one-time thing. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewrb: The blanking of this page was just an error in judgment from the NPP rather than anything close to an edit war. And yes, it happened once, so it does not violate the FLC criteria. Besides that, everything else has been addressed. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, support ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 04:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now at WP:MERGE. That should probably be resolved before it continues at FLC.
@FLC director and delegates: does this nomination need to be closed? ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 22:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion seems to have stalled out after this list was changed to pholidotans rather than manids, so I think we can continue here. --Pres N 14:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully PresN, you were part of the merge discussion and have taken a position on that discussion. I would request that another @FLC director and delegates: take a look. WP:FLCR #6 requires stability, and I would argue that an ongoing merge discussion precludes stability. Either someone closes that merge discussion or this should be archived and brought back when things are settled. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty torn on this. The article isn't technically unstable unless it's closed as merge from my point of view. There's currently a request for closure, so, I think we may as well just wait it out at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh Not saying this is going to happen, but merge discussions can last for months. I don't see any issues closing this as unsuccessful for now, and then allowing the nominator to renominate when the merge discussion is over. I am sure Matthewrb would be happy to come back and lend their support when it gets renominated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Image Needed.png should be removed from the article. It is unprofessional looking, unencyclopedic and without precedent. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve closed the merge discussion, by the way. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger

At eight extant species, this list meets the minimum entry requirement for FLC. However, I have several major concerns about the overall quality of this article.

First off, there was a ninth proposed species published on in 2023, this should be discussed briefly in the lede.
The lede also generally needs a good copy-edit; I may do so after my more major concerns are addressed.
Most of all: I am concerned that the prehistoric species and taxonomy thereof was copied uncritically from elsewhere on Wikipedia, because those articles are rife with known issues up to an including WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I suggest going straight to the sources to ensure the proper higher-level taxonomy is being followed.
Speaking of the prehistoric species, cases like this is exactly why {{Paleospecies table}} was created. I suggest using it.

Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: OK, I think I completed everything. Your thoughts? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 12:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect you to reply so soon and I'm on a ship with crappy Wi-Fi. This review may take awhile, especially as I realize the paleospecies template might need tweaking. But I'm impressed with it so far. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: Reached land yet? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 20:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Another note: you're inconsistent in how you list weight: in some cells you conjoin it to the length i.e. "...l and a weight of 30 kg (66 lb)", while in others it's placed free-floating so to speak below the length without conjunction. Please change it to be consistent (I prefer the first form but do not require it). SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 06:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger12, courtesy ping to see if you feel your comments have been addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comments have been addressed. Therefore, I support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Crisco and image review

Reviewing per request at my own FLC.

Prose looks good, mostly, though I made one minor adjustment.
In the tables, is "Skeletal diagram" the best descriptor? These are life recreations, by the looks of things.
- changed
File:Manidae collage four species.jpg - Under the licensing terms, this needs attribution. You should link each source image.
- done
File:Pangolin brought to the Range office, KMTR AJTJ cropped.jpg - Should have a link to the source image
- done
File:Giant pangolin (Manis gigantea), Natural History Museum, London, Mammals Gallery.JPG - Do we not have any images of living specimens?
- Unfortunately not
File:Euromanis krebsi.jpg - Do you have access to the paper to confirm it was released under a compatible license?
- Yes, added link to the journal where all works are CC BY
File:Necromanis franconica.jpg - What source data was used in this reconstruction?
- Removed
File:Manis palaeojavanica and javanica.jpg - This image combines two different species. Perhaps a different one would be more illustrative?
- Removed, since it's the only image we have

Overall, very tight. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent! Happy to support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question?

Hi @FLC director and delegates: is this list ready for a source review or is something missing? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 23:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine X-eye: Source reviews can be done at any time, and we do try to regularly update the box at the top of the page pointing out which articles need them. I'll be doing so now. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 16:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: Hey guys, you there? My nomination is now at the bottom of the "older nominations" section, as it's currently 44 days old, which is double that of the average FLC nom. It's worth mentioning that I'm miserable right now--correction, I've been miserable this whole year, and my motivation to edit Wikipedia is at an all time low, so I'd like to get this done as soon as possible. Of course, no pressure on your side. Just want to wrap up this year's worth of editing. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot force anybody to review this nomination and we cannot promote it without the appropriate amount of scrutiny and reviewing being performed. Participants at FLC are often less inclined to provide reviews for nominators who themselves don't review for others, so the best way to get your list promoted is to typically to provide quality reviews for others.

Realistically, maybe we should have pulled this nom because of the merge discussion, because that, in of itself, did likely stop others from reviewing it, worrying it might be a waste of their time.

Again though, no need to ping us unless it's urgent or there's an expectation we wouldn't see what needs attention. We do regularly check nominations to see if they have been appropriate reviewed. As for being double the average nom, that's incorrect. There are regular nominators who are often working on a series which is easier to review and are familiar with expectations and requirements, which is why their nomination gets promoted quicker in some cases. Even then, that's not always the case. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: What are you on about? I'm just requesting that the source review be conducted as soon as possible. That's all. I don't know who conducts source reviews around here, so I pinged you guys in the hopes of getting one done. Keep in mind that this is my first nomination, so forgive any inaccuracies I may make. And lastly, I'm not forcing anyone to review anything; I'm just requesting for a source review since I thought you guys knew of a person who conducted such reviews, which I must say are highly specialized reviews that I doubt most FLC participants are remotely good at. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on about answering your comment... as mentioned, we can't force people to review for you. It's listed in the source review needed header, which is our attempt at requesting source reviews to various articles. That's about all we can do since, from my point of view, it'd be inappropriate for us as coordinator/delegates to request a specific individual review this. It feels like we'd be pressuring individuals with our implicit soft power, which is why we don't typically do it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for clarifying. I just didn't expect to wait this long for a source review. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 21:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]