Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ochotonids/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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of ochotonids edit

Featured list candidates/List of ochotonids/archive1

Nominator(s): Pres N 03:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To no one's surprise, the train continues with another animal list! We continue our long journey through the mammals; we've finished the orders Carnivora (10 lists), aka "meat-eaters"; Artiodactyla (4 lists), aka "hooved animals that aren't like horses"; and Perissodactyla (1 list), aka "hooved animals that are like horses", and here we are in Lagomorpha, aka "things that are like rabbits", with the sister list to list of leporids, aka rabbits, which is also at FLC. Here we have the other half of Lagomorpha, the pika family, with list of ochotonids: they're not rodents, but actually tiny rabbit-cousins. Like so many of the lists already done, this is a unique one: all 34 species are in a single genus, so we don't get an interesting cladogram or really anything besides one big table. There are subgenera, but they're not universally used... because of the second odd thing: a good chunk of the family has recently been revamped. Research out of China in the last decade has determined that a lot of species should be split, generally on old subspecies lines, basically because the pika lives in high elevations so the population in every mountain range has diverged from each other. A few books have caught up to these splits, so we have data for the table, but in some cases we don't have articles, much less an IUCN rating or pretty pictures/range maps. Which is a shame, because it turns out pikas are adorable; it's not part of this list, but I don't mind telling you that most species build "haystacks" of plants to burrow next to for the winter, popping out occasionally for a snack, which is probably why that little guy is carrying a flower in his mouth in the lead picture instead of just eating it. In any case, thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 03:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Suggest wikilinking forbs, as this is not a well-known word
Also possibly legumes and sedge
That's all I could find! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Whoops, knew I forgot something. Done! --Pres N 12:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fantastic work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass edit

File:LagomysRufescens.jpg — "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States."

Done, published 1876, copyright holder died 1905

File:Ochotona pusilla.tif — source link, how do we know if it is CC-by-attr-SA-4.0? And if it is "between 1700 and 1880", then would be better tags available.

Agreed, given that the source was published in 1881–1883, "CC-anything" is clearly wrong. Switched to pd-old (and PD-US-expired).

That it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Done. --Pres N 22:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for image review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank edit

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
"Diet: ... bird brains": unexpected.
Checking the FLC criteria:
1. The prose and made-to-order table coding seem fine. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
3b. The article 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.
6. It is stable.
Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun

Disclaimer: Haven't checked references, and will be claiming credit for this at the Wikicup.

Resolved comments from ~~~~

* "an ochotonid, or colloquially" → Comma unnecessary.

"shrubland, and rocky biomes" → Link scrubland and biome.
"long Northern pika" → Northern should be uncapitalized.
"many are not yet evaluated for conservation status" → "many have not yet had their conservation status evaluated"
"single genus, Ochotona" → Ochotona should be italicized.
Also, since you've said that Ochotona is the only genus in the family, which is already linked, is the duplink needed?
"four subgenera" → Link subgenus.
"Several extinct Ochotonidae species" → Looking at the page for pika, there seem to be more extinct species than living ones, so "Many species" would be a better wording.
"species in 1 genus" → "species in one genus"
In Korean pika, link lichen
That's all I could find. AryKun (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AryKun: All done, thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 14:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. AryKun (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FLC director and delegates: reminder that since I wrote this list, one of you two has to evaluate it for promotion. --Pres N 14:32, 12 April 2022 (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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.