Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cervids/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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, 24 May 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of cervids

edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PresN 02:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having finished my 10-list series of Carnivora (last one pending promotion), I decided to move on to this list of deer of the world, thinking that despite the 53-ish species in the family Cervidae that it was a pretty well-defined group and would be straightforward. Not so, as it turns out- while the concept of a "deer" is fairly easy in the English-speaking countries, the borders between species is pretty nebulous for some genera. The consensus is currently at 53, like I said, but between the brocket deer of South America and the muntjacs of southeast Asia, there are either 4 species or 25+ in those two groups, depending on the source you look at. That made sourcing the exact sizes and preferred food of each species a huge pain, doubly so when for many of the species the research is scattershot: there was one species that as far as I could tell they only measured the exact dimensions of a single individual ever... and then did a rigorous DNA analysis on that individual to make sure it really was a distinct species from the slightly different brocket deer in the same area. A statistically robust sample that is not.

Anyways, I'll stop complaining; this is a list of all of the deer ("cervids") in the world, following the same pattern as my lists of carnivorans. If you've seen any of those it's pretty much the same but with antlers and fewer sharp teeth this time. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure if I'm qualified, but I went over it it and saw no formatting, grammatical, spelling, or other mundane errors. The only thing I'd question is the restorations of prehistoric species: are they professional restorations, and if not, did they go through Paleoart review? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that that section has now been removed and my question about the pictures rendered a moot point, I am happy to support. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Diet: Ggrasses, mast, and shrubs" - typo there ;-)
  • "In addition–extant cervids," - should this be "In addition to the extant cervids,"? The dash looks odd........
  • Think that's it from me - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The extinct species have major omissions. Fossilworks/Paleobiology Database can never be considered an exhaustive source for all extinct taxa of a group. Roman Croitor's 2019 book Plio-Pleistocene Deer of Western Palearctic: Taxonomy, Systematics, Phylogeny (open access) is probably the most comprehensive recent source on extinct fossil deer, but it only considers western Eurasia, and does not cover eastern Eurasia or the Americas. It may be worth having this article cover extant species only, as for some of the extinct species their genus placement is disputed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hemiauchenia:If it's going to be an issue I'd rather drop all extinct species. Given that the large majority of extant deer species are not found in western Eurasia, a source on extinct taxa only covering that area wouldn't be that helpful on its own. While I know that the PDB is not an exhaustive source, this is the tenth list like this I've done, and only one (Canidae) had any sort of authoritative source for global extinct species. If relying on PDB (which is at least global and doesn't contradict itself) isn't good enough, then it's essentially impossible to source any such section like this- I'm not well-versed in paleobiology enough to track down and resolve a dozen contradictory books... which is probably why every list of extinct species on wikipedia I've ever seen is almost completely unreferenced, come to think of it. Anyways, I'll leave it for now to see other reviewer's opinions, but I'm open to dropping it. --PresN 19:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's dealt with prehistoric deer taxonomy when working on the Megaceroides algericus and Irish elk articles, all I can say is that it's a total mess and in my opinion it's probably best to exclude the fossil taxa entirely to avoid headaches. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was all set to support, but have now been thrown into confusion by the above. Let me know when that's resolved..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia and ChrisTheDude: After consideration, and recognizing that Hemiauchenia knows a lot more about this area than I do, I'm going to go ahead and remove the prehistoric section. --PresN 15:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With that clarified I am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. Prose: I read the whole thing, can't find a flaw. The coding seems fine. I sampled the links in the tables; there are no sortable columns to check.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is apparently well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). I'd argue that all relevant retrieval dates are present; I think some could say that links to, for instance, "Waring, G. H" can't be counted on to exactly reproduce printed material, and they might argue you need a retrieval date.
  • 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. The images are outstanding. Above and beyond.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Could link biome.
  • Linked
  • "Schomburgk's deer, went extinct in the 20th century" can we be more specific than a range of 100 years?
  • For once yes, in many cases we just have "someone thought they saw one in 1920 and it's never been seen since", but in this case it's probably 1938.
  • "consists of 53 extant species" yet when I add up all IUCN categories, I get 53 including one extinct species".
  • So, between this and your last review, I'm starting to realize that I'm bad with counting (or at least keeping all numbers up to date when editing the list)- it's 53 including Schomburgk's and 19 genera, you're right
  • "belonging to 20 genera" I've counted it a couple of times and get 19 each time? And 52 species again.
  • "Genus Alces (Gray, 1821) – two species" one listed?
  • Fixed
  • "1,000-1,500" etc, should be en-dash.
  • Fixed all
  • Avoid auto-collapsing those lists, especially as you're not doing it consistently.
  • I've been doing it consistently across all of the lists so far- autocollapsed if there's 7 or more, which is the number that makes the box stretch vertically given the size I constrain images to. The template does not collapse the information on mobile browsers or screen readers, I've checked.
  • "Small red brocket" says "Size: Unknown" but there's a photo of one!
  • Yeah, a photo is not a published general size range for an entire species. "Unknown" doesn't literally mean "could be anything", it means "no verifiable published data in an RS", and no researchers have published measurement data for that species
  • Why do ranges change colour from red to dark green? Is there a key for this information?
  • Range colors don't have meaning unless specified, whoever made the maps just tended to pick reds for some genera and greens some other times
  • In the "Bawean island of Indonesia" image, what does the orange blob represent?
  • It's an arrow pointing at the island
  • Surprised there's no indication of muntjac in the UK. We have loads over here, I see them almost daily. The muntjac article lists twelve species but only eleven in this list, is there an explanation?
  • Muntjacs are native to Southeast Asia, but the Reeves's muntjac was introduced to the UK in 1925 and I missed it; added that bit to that species
  • The 12th species is the Sumatran muntjac, which is not listed in Mammal Species of the World (2005) (aka MSW3); the shape of this list (per wiki-wide consensus of the mammal projects) is to use MSW3 as a base and then adjust for newer research. the Sumatran muntjac does not have consensus to be it's own species- for example, while Muntiacus lists it as a species, its own article says it's a subspecies of the Indian muntjac before reversing course and saying that maybe it is a species because the IUCN lists it. The IUCN, however, lists it as "data deficient" and explains that it's because most sources don't consider it a species, sometimes explicitly so, so it's impossible to have a literature review that focuses just on that type of muntjac. As a result, it's in this list as a subspecies of the Indian muntjac.

That's it for a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks, responded! --PresN 19:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool. Happy to support now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FLC director and delegates: If I may be so bold, I'm guessing this one has been here for some time because its in need of a source review. But it seems Guerillero has already done one (and passed it) above. I've glanced through and can only reach the same conclusion as Guerillero. Again, sorry if this is overstepping. Aza24 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: It's probably a bigger problem that I'm the nominator, TRM already supported, which leaves Giants... except that tax season is extra long this year so they're still very busy. I'm sure it will be promoted eventually, I'm not in a rush. Thanks for trying to help! --PresN 00:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! My rationale was seeing it on the backlog, so I just assumed the source review above had been missed. But yes, not trying to rush anyone at all either. Aza24 (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I don't agree that there are no reliable sources for the sizes and diets of many of the species listed as "unknown." For example, The Handbook of Mammals of the World contains size and diet information for most of these species, and I believe that is a reliable source. Rlendog (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rlendog: Do you have access to it? I'd love to cite it, but given that each of the 9 volumes of The Handbook of Mammals of the World is $200 and there's no electronic version to borrow/buy/preview (on google books or elsewhere) I don't have access to it. --PresN 19:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do have access. I'll try to add in the information this weekend. Although Harvard formatting is not my forte so you may need to fix the format of the references. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rlendog: Excellent! Don't worry about formatting at all- you can feel free to just dump data + page numbers on the talk page if that's easier for you, or just upload pictures of the pages somewhere and I'll sort through them, or whatever is most convenient for you- it's a lot of deer and I don't want to overwhelm you. --PresN 19:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: I added the missing information I was able to find. The footnotes probably need to be reformatted to the Harvard style. I also found size information about Schomburgk's deer here but this doesn't seem like it would meet the criteria for a reliable source. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rlendog: Thanks so much! I'm going to have to find a way to get that set when I next have access to university libraries. I'll sort out the formatting shortly. And yeah, I saw Ultimate Ungulate but I don't think it meets the criteria either. --PresN 01:29, 16 May 2021 (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_cervids/archive1&oldid=1024766531"