Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of procyonids/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, 1 June 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of procyonids edit
List of procyonids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Fourth in my ongoing series of "animals in a family" (felids, canids, mustelids), we continue through Carnivora with Procyonidea, aka "raccoons". It's the smallest family so far, at 14 species, and doesn't have named subfamilies or tribes, partially because modern research has shown that all prior divisions based on appearance were wrong. The animals are less diverse than other families, generally being 1-2 foot-long forest-dwelling psuedo-omnivores with really long tails, but as the lead image shows they can be pretty cute. The list format is based on the prior lists and reflects FLC comments. As always, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm getting faster at these (mainly because my script now pulls information directly from Mammal Species of the World, Wikidata, the IUCN, and Animal Diversity Web to generate the tables in the first place), so mustelids isn't promoted yet, but has supports already.)
- By and large would be happy to support this (seems just as high a standard as the previous iterations) but I do have a query about the paragraph of text just before the tables ("The following classification …"). It seems uncited and contains a few assertions which indicate that information may be contested; could this be cited? For example, if there are proposals to reclassify "some island populations of raccoons to full subspecies", perhaps we should be specifying where this proposal has come from. But aside from that I see nothing else to query. Images are all used appropriately, sourcing seems consistent. I haven't spot-checked sources for accuracy but can do so if required. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Grapple X: Easy enough to cite the studies that broke out those species (can also add the IUCN pages as sources too if you think I should); not sure about the last sentence about things not being included- they're instances where there's no strong sources that support the change and MSW3/the IUCN don't support it. I put it in the first list mostly as a reader guide to indicate why some taxonomic change they may have read about somewhere else wasn't included; it is pretty weak, though, and I'm not sure how to cite it as a negative assertion. I'm willing to remove it if you think I should. --PresN 15:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say you need to cite a negative assertion; there's no need to cite why you have organised the tables or information as you have, but I would at least specify one or more of the proposed classifications that the list specifies that it doesn't abide by--so either "There are several additional proposals which are disputed, such as promoting some island populations of raccoons to full subspecies,[cite one or two of these here] which are not included here", or even "There are several additional proposals which are disputed, such as XYZ's proposal to promote some island populations of raccoons to full subspecies,[cite the specified proposal here] which are not included here" would be sufficient. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 15:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive-by comment
I think there's a copy-paste issue in the last sentence of the Prehistoric procyonids section....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive-by comments
In British English we don't use "preys on" with "fruit". But maybe that is normal in US English? If not maybe change to "eats". And "hunting" to "diet".
Consider changing "In addition to the extant genera, Procyonidae comprises 19 extinct genera, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed. Extinct species have also been placed into some extant genera; around 40 extinct Procyonidae species have been found, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed." to something like "As of 2020[update] around 40 extinct species and 19 extinct genera have been discovered: although some extinct species have been placed in extant genera research is ongoing, so the extinct Procyonidae may be recategorized in future."
P.S. If you have time to do a bit more which might help a smidgen to save the animals from climate change could you point out my mistakes in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chidgk1: This is the second time someone's commented about the "preys on" (though I think the other time was also you); I've gone ahead and changed it to "eats" and changed the template to say "Diet" instead of "Hunting", to better accommodate non-carnivorous species. I've also changed that sentence to "In addition to the extant species, as of 2020 Procyonidae comprises 40 extinct species placed in both extant and 19 extinct genera, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed." --PresN 16:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I would break the sentence beginning "Procyonid habitats are generally forests" into two after "as well"
- I think that's genuinely all I have...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Done! --PresN 13:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It's a very good article. I couldn't find anything to pick at. ~ HAL333 20:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts and source review
- The use of the green Open Access symbol is inconsistent
- I find NGO sources to be questionable at times, but the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International looks reasonable to me
- The alt texts need work
- Everything else passes my review.
--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Guerillero: sorry for the delay! Not sure which refs you're referring to to not be consistent with the OA symbol; the cite iucn template adds it by default to iucn refs, and a bot did the others, so I'm not clear on what I need to do- is it just that ref 4 needs a not-OA symbol? Other than that, added alt text to the two images that were missing it; the maps don't have it because they have a caption directly above them instead describing the map. --PresN 02:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support passes my review --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:31, 25 May 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) 23:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.