Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Testudines families/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by Dabomb87 23:17, 20 July 2010 [1].

List of Testudines families

Featured list candidates/List of Testudines families/archive1

Featured list removal candidates/List of Testudines families/archive1

Notified: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails criterion 2 (not much in the lead) and has no inline citations. The table itself looks nice, but it cannot be an FL if it fails those other two points. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak~~ Strong keep Sandman888 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it's scientific. Wikipedia has too much sports and entertainment (I'm as guilty as the next guy, I know), it is my belief that material pertaining to science and math should be given extra leeway and community effort.
I'll try to deal with the citations
- I've included two refs for two columns. I think that mainly covers the list. As for the lede, perhaps someone with a dictionary can verify what's written. Sandman888 (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references are fixed, but I still find the lead to be lacking in general. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments:

To be a bit frank, I don't like the attitude that we should have lower standards for science than popular culture. If we can have high standards for popular culture, we definitively should be just as thorough for science.
The lead should be longer and needs a better opening.
- I've dealt with the opening sentence, but someone who knows what they're talking about should do the lead. Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately before the list, there needs to be description of the various columns.
- I've added a key; hopefully people will know what "Example species" and "Example picture" mean, Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under family, there seems to be three distinct pieces of information, which should be moved to their own columns.
- As far as I can tell, this is common practice. With the key in place, I don't feel this is necessary. Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is underlinked, for instance genera and species.
- Dealt with. Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is an hyphen where there should be an endash in the infobox.
- Fixed. Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The empty table spaces should have a center-aligned emdash.
- There are no more empty cells. Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theobald is a disambiguation page.
One of the links is dead.
- Both fixed. Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article still needs a longer lead. What is there looks good, but I know nothing about turtles (I didn't even know they were also called testudines before reading this list), so someone else needs to do the writing. Even if they just get content down, I can do a copyedit on it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a sufficiently long lead and all other matters seen to, the article now meets the FL criteria. Nice work all of us. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the article will be fine if someone adds an appropriate, well-referenced lead (and perhaps a reference for "Common name(s)"). Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied now; I'll check with the FLC directors and see if they have any concerns, if not then it can be closed. Nice work. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Example photo"->"Example image" perhaps. Photo is an abbreviation, and image is more general.
- Changed. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalisation needs a bit of work to be consistent, I think. You've got "Common Snakeneck Turtle" which redirects to "Common snakeneck turtle" while the Common names seem to have a combination of capital or non-capital T for Turtle/tortoise.
- Hopefully this is fixed. I capitalized all parts of specific common names, and capitalized the first word of family or generic common names. Note that some families have only one species in them, so the specific common name is used. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another instance -> Madagascan big-headed or Madagascan Big-headed? It's picky and maybe borderline irrelevant, but to a non-expert the seemingly random capitalisation could use either consistency or an explanation.
- My fix was to capitalize Madagascan Big-headed Turtle, since it is a specific name, and also to add Big-headed Amazon River Turtle. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why specific and general references, despite being at the same heading level, are different text sizes?
- I was unsure of what to do, so I moved the "general" references into a "Further reading" section, and moved the one website into an "External links" section. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family (biology) appears to be a dab link, as does fenestration.
- Family (biology) seems fine to me(?), fenestration has been changed to a wiktionary link by user:Kenchikuben. None of the links on the fenestration disambiguation page looked appropriate. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well is it taxomonic rank or taxon? That's what the dab page says it could be? It's not a major issue as the page does go on to talk about it further I suppose... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A minor issue, redirects. You have Cheloniidae which redirects to Sea turtle but in the same row you have Green sea turtle which redirects to Green turtle. This is potentially confusing, can we fix this up, including all the other instances of this kind of twin redirect?
- I'm a bit confused by this. In the example you gave, are you asking for the Green turtle article to be moved to the Green Sea Turtle page? ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm saying you have a variety of odd redirects. Redirects are generally not a problem, but clicking on Cheloniidae to get Sea turtle but then Green sea turtle to get Green turtle seems a little misleading to a complete non-expert such a me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comment – What makes Encyclopedia of Life (reference 1) a reliable source? It's not a wiki, but it apparently is a collaborative work, like Wikipedia is. Is the listed author an expert in the field? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The author, Keith Pecor, is an expert on the subject from what I've seen.[2] Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since an expert did write the page, I will strike the issue, and I can be considered in the keep column since I didn't notice anything else to comment on. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the status on this? The list is very close to being kept, but I'm hesitant to close the nomination when there's a sourcing issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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