Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of pinnipeds/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 promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of pinnipeds edit

Featured list candidates/List of pinnipeds/archive1

Nominator(s): Pres N 05:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We finally reach the end of my animals-in-a-family journey through Carnivora (previously: felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids/herpestids) with list #9: pinnipeds, which isn't a family. Encompassing the 34 species of the infraorder Pinnipedia, aka the 16 "eared seal" species, the 17 "true seal" species, and the walrus, it was too awkward to split up, as it's essentially the only "infraorder" within the order Carnivora. This will conclude our little journey through the carnivore families: Eupleridae has 10 extant and 0 extinct species and a weak parent article, Hyaenidae has 4 species, and Nandiniidae and Ailuridae have one species each, so no lists there. It's a good ending to the miniseries- decent length, lots of good information, and a twist that unlike the more land-based carnivores many seal species' diets are based more on how deep they dive rather than "is it a small enough mammal to get their mouth around without getting kicked". Additionally, it includes the largest carnivore (by a lot): the absurdly large southern elephant seal (6 m/20 ft long, 3,700 kg/8,200 lb), which surprisingly is not one of the ones that eat penguins and other seals. As always, the list format is based on the prior lists and reflects FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 05:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Could do with a source for the southern elephant seal being the largest carnivore
Krill is linked the second time it appears, not the first
Think that's it from me. Great work as ever with these lists! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done and done, thanks! --Pres N 15:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I tried, but I couldn't find anything to pick you up on. ~ HAL333 21:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest removing "Population counts vary widely between species" which feels patently obvious and applicable to most every family.
So I noticed in all the other articles the level 2 header is the title family, with subfamilies below it. Here you have an infraorder with families below it. I'd suggest maybe removing the pinnipeds headers and making the families level 2.

Looks great as usual. Reywas92^Talk 23:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Removed wording in lead; I see the headings as consistent with other lists in that the top level is "the level the list is about" and the subheadings are the next level down (also there's no subfamilies here, so that helps), but more importantly if I promote the families to level 2 then I don't have a spot to put the "The following classification is based on..." blurb. --Pres N 02:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reywas92^Talk 06:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
This looks great at a zoom of 120%, even with the complex tables ... much appreciated.
If puns are the lowest form of wit, dash fixes are the lowest form of copyediting ... but I couldn't find much else to do. I scratched my head for a while, but I've got nothing.
FLC criteria:
1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the tables seems fine.
2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
3b. Sourcing is excellent, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review).
3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
4. It is navigable.
5. It meets style requirements. Very nice choice of images.
6. It is stable.
Support. - Dank (push to talk) 04:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – As is typical with this series of lists, the reliability and formatting look fine throughout. Unfortunately, I'm having difficulty accessing the link-checker tool at the moment, but the links all have archived versions or DOIs included anyway. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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) 22:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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