Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of fish of the North Sea/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 not promoted by Giants2008 21:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of fish of the North Sea edit
List of fish of the North Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Yuriy Kvach (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The list presents full ichthyofauna of the North Sea. The list includes illustrartions, indicate the conservation status of species by IUCN's criteria, also classified fishes by their origin. It might be very useful for specialists, also for all persons who interest on fish fauna. Yuriy Kvach (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - quite a few problems here I'm afraid:
- Lead is effectively two sentences and essentially provides no context, check out some existing FLs for the kind of lead which is expected
- Lead image has no caption
- Not explained why some values in the "taxa authority" column are in brackets and others not
- "Sources" heading is spelt wrong
- Fishbase link (seemingly being used as a source, although it's not specified what it is sourcing) doesn't work
- It really isn't clear what is actually referencing anything in the table
- Lots of work to do here, I'm afraid........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, the brackets are correct and are convention that actually contain information. They mean that the person(s) that originally described the species placed it in a different taxonomic group. It would be odd to have to explain that in the thousands upon thousands of species pages, genus pages, family pages, list of species pages, list of genera pages... etc. I do agree the other issues. Mattximus (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That probably ought to be explained in that case -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, basically agree with everything ChrisTheDude said, none of which has been rectified in the almost two weeks since his comment. The lead and referencing are the two biggest issues, in my mind, and typos in the headers simply show that care was not taken to buff the article to meet FL criteria before bringing it to FLC. Overall, I don't think it would take more than a couple hours of work to buff up the article (assuming that all of the relevant fish species are indeed listed and listed properly), but that work is obviously not being done. Dana boomer (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.