Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of pilosans/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, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of pilosans edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PresN 00:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number 29 in our series of animal FLC finds us with the last single-list order of mammals: the species of the order Pilosa, aka the anteaters and sloths. It's a tidy little list of 12 South and Central American animals, which will likely be familiar to reviewers (at least in the two general groupings, if not individual species. As always, the list follows the pattern of the previous lists and reflects previous FLC comments. Unfortunately (for me), while this is the last of the "small" orders, and the 14th of 18 large enough to have a dedicated list, the last four orders represent half of the mammal families, and three quarters of the species. Turns out there's a ton of shrews (400 species), primates (500), bats (1300), and especially rodents (2300!), so... I'll be doing this for a long while. In the meantime, thanks for reviewing this list! --PresN 00:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SilverTiger
  • Nice to see the next entry of mammal lists! I admire your dedication to going through even the specious primates, bats, and rodents... each of those have quite a few families beneath each order. But re-focusing on this list...
  • "The twelve extant species of Pilosa are divided into two suborders, Folivora,.." -> "The twelve extant species of Pilosa are divided into two suborders: Folivora,.."
  • "Vermilingua also contains two species:.." er, I think you mean two families here.
  • "Dozens of extinct prehistoric Pilosa species.." -> "Dozens of extinct prehistoric pilosan species.."
  • For the pygmy three-toed sloth, would it be at all possible to get a map with one of those zoom-in squares that actually shows the tiny island I assume the species inhabits?

Overall, this is very good work. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Text edits made; I'll see what I can do about the map. --PresN 02:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverTiger12: Okay, I've made a modified version of the map that has an inset- it's still microscopic, but it's at least visible now as more than a single red pixel- the island is 1.5 x 1 miles (3x1.5 km), and somehow has multiple unique species and subspecies from being cut off from the mainland by a deep 14km ocean trench for so long, which makes it hard to show on a map that's recognizable as being Central America. --PresN 22:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, thank you! Full Support. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by BennyOnTheLoose edit

  • All sources are high quaility and appropriate.
  • I couldn't see any issues with reference formatting, and none were shown by the ref check script or Citation Bot.

I don't feel I've done a source review unless I've done some spot checks:

  • Brown-throated sloth Diet: Leaves, flowers, and fruit of Cecropia trees - no issues.
  • Pygmy three-toed sloth IUCN status and estimated population: CR - no issues.
  • Giant Anteater Diet: Ants, termites, and soft-bodied grubs - no issues.
  • Giant Anteater IUCN status and estimated population: VU - no issues.
  • Southern tamandua Habitat: Forest, savanna, and shrubland - no issues.

Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by BennyOnTheLoose edit

  • Infobox image is CC; it's a composite of three CC images and one PD one, so that seems fine.
  • All of the other photos (and the illustration for Pygmy three-toed sloth) are either CC or PD. I found no reason to doubt any of the licences.
  • Positioning is appropriate; images are adequately clear.
  • The maps all seem OK, including the Pygmy three-toed sloth one as mentioned above, and to be in line with a couple of similarly themed featured lists that I looked at.
  • Probably due to my ignorance, I wasn't entirely sure that all of the image-alt text is correct (I see from Template:Species table/row that it's mentioned as optional there, but I always encourage the use of alt text per MOS:ALT's "Absent or unhelpful alternative text can be a source of frustration for visually impaired users") PresN, I'll be happy to accept your confirmation that the image-alt text is fine if that's the case. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, all images here have alt text in the style of previous lists. --PresN 13:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • Southern maned sloth is included at Three-toed sloth but not here. I see on the latter's edit history a comment that "There had previously been controversy over whether the southern maned sloth was a distinct species". Are you satisfied that it should be excluded here? (I haven't looked at any sources, so have no opinion. I note that the text in the list under consideration here mentions that "The following classification is based on the taxonomy described by the reference work Mammal Species of the World (2005)".)
  • Thanks for your work on this list! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BennyOnTheLoose: The current guidelines for WikiProject Mammals are that species should be considered as such if it's in Mammal Species of the World (2005), which can be overrided by agreement between the Mammal Diversity Database and IUCN. The Southern maned sloth (Bradypus crinitus) isnot in MSW3; it's also not in the IUCN catalog, but is in the MDD. As such, it's not in this list- it shouldn't have an article either, but I'm not going to try to enforce the wikiproject standards across thousands of articles. --PresN 13:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have no other suggestions, and am satisfied that the list meets the criteria. Thanks for the helpful reponses. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No suggestions that I can think of, very nice work and good luck on the bats, rodents, and primates. AryKun (talk) 16:04, 18 July 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_pilosans/archive1&oldid=1166826736"