Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of cetaceans/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 PresN 17:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
List of cetaceans edit
List of cetaceans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: WikiProject Cetaceans, WikiProject Mammals, Gamaliel, Materialscientist, ShaneGero, Neelix, Neil916
This FL was promoted in 2007. Since then, it has suffered from a lot of IP vandalism (due to the similarity of "cetacean" and "citation"). Note that the user who brought this to FL, Chris huh (talk · contribs), is long-term inactive. Looking at WP:WIAFL, this list violates many of the criteria:
1. it does not feature professional standards of writing.
2. the lead section is quite short.
3. the citation needed (or, more accurately, "cetacean needed") tags need to be addressed, and many list items are unsourced.
4. from a quick glance this is fine.
5. more images are needed.
6. the edit warring means that the list cannot be considered stable. sst✈discuss 18:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to expanding the lead. As for the images, I'd say that's fine; I don't understand what more images would have to be added. The "citation needed" templates are calling for citations for pretty basic stuff, so that'll be easy for me to fix. I'll just replace all the "cetacean needed" tags with unknown (since they're all referring to a lack of information which remains to be unknown). I'll try to fix right now. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 23:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the ones I've list above, but what do you mean this list does not feature a professional standard of writing? What sections need to be improved? Also, could you review the new lead, I'm not sure if it suits the article? Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 01:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The new section is much better. Thanks for your work! sst✈discuss 02:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does anything else need to be addressed? Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 15:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: Apologies for not coming back to this sooner. One dead ref needs to be addressed, please format citations consistently (I see bare URLs and one missing or empty |title=), and images need alt texts. Thanks for your prompt response, and take your time. sst✈discuss 15:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Would that also include the {{IUCN status}} templates with just the url included? I've reformated one of those (next to Balaena mysticetus) but I'll stop there until I get a response. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 23:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added alt texts to all images and have placed misplaced refs into notes. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 00:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77:@SSTflyer: I'd like to KEEP this as FL, please let me know how to help. I can get a team of cetacean biologist working on this in December but not within the timeline of 14 day review ShaneGero (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – in my opinion the work done by Dunkleosteus77 is sufficient to keep the featured list status, when compared to the WP:WIAFL criteria. sst✈discuss 08:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this nomination as Keep; problems cleared up, nominator happy, no other concerns raised. --PresN 17:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.