Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scandentians/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) 00:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of scandentians edit

Featured list candidates/List of scandentians/archive1

Nominator(s): Pres N 00:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is number 21 in our perpetual journey of animal list FLCs (3 lists for Lagomorpha, 10 for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, and 1 each for Perissodactyla, Cingulata, and Didelphimorphia), with another in a subseries of single-list orders. In this one we find the 23 species of Scandentia, or treeshrews, which despite the name aren't closely related to shrews or any rodent, but are instead closer to primates. These little mammals are native to the forests and jungles of southeast Asia, especially the islands of Maritime Southeast Asia, and all look fairly similar, though do note the painted treeshrew, which really does look like it was dropped in a bucket of red paint. We're missing a few photos of these guys due to their small and reclusive nature, but the science is up to date and the formatting reflects prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 00:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"They are all around a similar size, ranging from the Bornean smooth-tailed treeshrew, at 11 cm (4 in) plus a 9 cm (4 in) tail, to the striped treeshrew, at 23 cm (9 in) plus a 13 cm (5 in) tail" - pedantically, are they all really around a "similar" size given that the larger of these two examples has a body more than twice as long as the former.......?
This might also be highly pedantic, but is there any nuance intended in the use of "Insects and fruit" versus "Insects as well as fruit", or is that just a way of mixing up the language a bit?
That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Hmm, so I'm coming from the out-of-article perspective that 4 to 9 inches is a small range compared to a range e.g. 4 inches to 3 feet- for mammals, it's a small range, though you have a point that in-article the biggest is twice as long as the smallest. Reworded to remove the "similar".
The nuance is that "insects as well as fruit" means they (according to the source) primarily eat insects, but also eat fruit, while "insects and fruit" means that they (according to the source) eat both without wording indicating one is more primary. --Pres N 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123 edit

Linking both Scandentia and treeshrews in the lead is redundant since both point to the same page and are unlikely to be split
For maps, it would be better for the description pages to cite specific pages instead of the general IUCN Red List link

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Sorry for the wait- was out of the country. Now done; wish the uploader had linked the actual source, but oh well. --Pres N 18:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank edit

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
Checking the FLC criteria:
1. I don't see any prose problems. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the tables.
2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
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. At a glance, the images seem fine.
6. It is stable.
Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – All of the references are to high-quality reliable sources, and no issues were detected by the link-checker tool. Everything passes in this department. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – One small issue in this regard: the image description for the pen-tailed treeshrew indicates that a U.S. public domain tag is still needed. It looks like the image was published in a pre-1927 book, so it should be easy enough to add a tag for this. Other than that point, the photos have appropriate free licenses and alt text, and sources are provided in the descriptions for the graphs. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Done, thanks! --Pres N 21:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With that done, I'd say the image review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 20 July 2022 (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) 21:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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