Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of storks/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, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of storks

edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the number of mammal species FL's is making me embarrassed about the state of the bird species lists, and I feel somewhat responsible for improving the situation. This is a pretty short list with a single order of rather famous birds, so it feels like a good place to start. AryKun (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fine-looking list layout! Happy to see it being used. Not doing a full review, but some thoughts:
  • For mammals, I went with titling them at the scientific name because many mammal families don't have a unified common name and I wanted to be consistent, and for this list that seems true as well- 7 of 20 species aren't "storks". Should this list be at List of ciconiids, with List of storks redirecting? Birds in general aren't consistent- List of toucans vs. List of Falconidae vs. List of sunbird species, so I guess its up to you what pattern you want.
    • The common name for Ciconiidae as a group is definitely storks; if you look up the family on every taxonomy (BirdLife, IOU, and Clements) they refer to the family as storks. I don't really think that every single species in a family needs to have the name in its common name. Lots of the Thraupidae are called finches, grassquits, or honeycreepers in their common name, but the common name for the family is unquestionably tanagers.
  • Some of the bird images stretch the row down- the "|image-size=" parameter lets you scale it down if you want; I scale mine so that it doesn't go taller than 180px, but it's up to you
  • Speaking of images, they need alt text- see the "|image-alt=" parameter, for which e.g. "white stork", "brown stork", etc. is sufficient
    • Added alts.
  • I see you exclude the "ecology" column - presumably because they all have similar habitats, sizes, and food?
    • More or less all the species are generalist waders (in the American sense) that inhabit wetlands and agricultural areas; the only really unique ones are the open bills which eat exclusively snails. In general, I think the ecology column in less useful for birds than mammals, because every group of birds with a unique ecological niche is probably already in its own order or family (there are no bird orders like Artiodactyla, which pretty much would need to have the ostriches, penguins, and storks together).
  • You're inconsistent on if it's "700,000" or "700000" for populations- I'd go with commas
    • Added commas.
  • There's a parameter to chop off the "DD" and "NE" categories from the redlist template if they're unused - I added it, feel free to revert. --PresN 17:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by SilverTiger
  • Disclaimer, I am using the various Featured mammal lists as a guide, since I've already reviewed some of those but no bird lists at all.
  • First off, I believe that I agree with PresN above in that I would prefer "List of ciconiids" or "List of ciconiiforms" rather than "List of storks" (and for other bird lists to be moved to be consistent).
    • See my response to PresN above: birds in general have their common names used much more than any other taxonomic group, and "stork" as a unified common name for Ciconiidae is pretty well-established. I understand that the mammal lists all have scientific names in the title for consistency, but I don't see any reason for that to be carried over to bird lists. Readers are much more likely to search for "List of storks" or "List of sunbirds" than "List of ciconiids" or "List of nectariniids", so this is the title I think the article is best placed at.
  • Is there no cladogram of the genera in the family at all, to accompany simple list in the Classification section?
    • The exact relationship of genera to each other is contentious, so I think it would be better to avoid having a cladogram until a couple different studies corroborate each other.
  • Please rename the "List" section to "Ciconiids".
    • Done.
  • Why is the ecology column completely omitted? I understand if their diets are all similar, but surely they are of different sizes and different habitats?
    • No, they're pretty similar in terms of ecology; they all mostly live in fields and wetlands, although the exact dependency of each species on a particular habitat naturally varies (but would be too long to put in the list). As for sizes, I'm not really sure how that's useful in the list; the reader could just go to the main stork article if they want to know the relative sizes of the species.
  • Are the yellow-billed stork, African woolly-necked stork, saddle-billed stork, and lesser adjutant missing range maps on purpose?
    • Yeah, there aren't any range maps on Commons.
Comments (in addition to the above)
Source review from MyCatIsAChonk

No spotcheck needed, will look at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun, I see no other issues, great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, I've addressed both of your comments. AryKun (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-expert) Image review
  • I haven't done one of these before, so here goes nothing.
  • All images have alt text, though I'm not sure how useful repetitions of "black stork, white stork" are. Consider adding a bit about what they are doing, i.e. "white stork flying", "black stork wading in muddy water". That is not a requirement, though.
    • The mammal lists seem to have similar alt texts for the ones I checked. The point of alt text is just to give a relevant caption about what the image portrays, and the actions that the storks are performing aren't really important in this context.
  • All images are appropriately licensed.
  • Not part of the image review, but pertaining to the cladogram- consider paring the cladogram down to just the genera and not every species. As it currently is it appears horizontally squished and vertically elongated. Most of the mammal lists use genus-level cladograms as well with good results.
    • There's only twenty species in the family as is, so I'd like to keep the whole cladogram as is. It's not too squished, and I'd unsquish it if I could figure out what the proper parameter for that is.
  • I already supported above, so... pass? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:21, 23 August 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_storks/archive1&oldid=1172579298"