Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Odonata species of Slovenia/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, 14 December 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Odonata species of Slovenia

Featured list candidates/List of Odonata species of Slovenia/archive1

Nominator(s): — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A comprehensive and, to the best of my knowledge, complete list, I believe it meets FL criteria. I thought that local vernacular names could be appropriate for such a list, but I can replace them with English ones in case commenters disagree. Adding English vernacular names is also an option. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from N Oneemuss

I don't think species needs a link
Does the local odonatological society have a name?
You could add an interlanguage link to Boštjan Kiauta (like this: Boštjan Kiauta [sl])
"The distribution of Odonata in Slovenia is now fairly well known by international standards, with Slovenia having been one of the first European countries for which a full account of faunistical data (an "atlas") was published." - source?
A map of Slovenia, or the location of Slovenia in Europe, might be nice, especially since you talk about how it is on the junction of several ecoregions
"faunistical" is a really obscure word (neither Google's dictionary nor Wiktionary recognise it); maybe replace it?
"Slovene fauna of Odonata is considered highly diverse" sounds a little odd to me grammatically
You are inconsistent as to whether you give Slovene names, eg you do for Red list of Odonata and Ordinance on protected native species of animals but not for Atlas of the Dragonflies (Odonata) of Slovenia or Centre for Cartography of Fauna and Flora
I think you should give English vernacular names; these are probably more useful to the average reader, and matches similar featured lists such as List of amphibians of Bulgaria or List of mammals of Korea. I think keeping or getting rid of the Slovene names would both be fine.
"C. parvidens and C. viridis are difficult to distinguish, and were split only in 1997." - source?
"Do we know when Coenagrion mercuriale was last seen in Slovenia?
Fiesa is a disambiguation link.
The icons showing the IUCN status are quite small, and the NE icon is hard to read because the colours are similar.
Škocjanski zatok nature reserve could have an interlanguage link as well Škocjanski zatok [sl]
The word "recent" should be avoided because it can become outdated; it would be better to give a year (this applies to the last section on excluded species)
The vernacular names of the excluded species could be given as well
Sources in a non-English language should have that specified in the reference (e.g. Cite journal has a |language= parameter)

That's all I can think of for now. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 13:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 20:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 02:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

To make it more concise, you could change Recorded in the 1960s in Fiesa by Boštjan Kiauta, was never found after that, so it is considered extirpated. to something like Last recorded by Boštjan Kiauta in 1960s Fiesa, it is considered extirpated.
Also, was this 1960s (is the exact year available?) sighting the only record of this dragonfly in Slovenia? If so, should it placed in the excluded species section?
I have some issues with the IUCN emblems. First, they link to a category page, and as N Oneemuss noted, they are too small. Using the likes of LC ({{IUCNCS|LC}}) should resolve both of those issues. They would also look better centered. (Here's the code: <center> </center>)
You should also add scope for the species column - it would make it a little easier to process.

That's all that I noticed. ~ HAL333 22:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, N Oneemuss and HAL333, I'll try to address them. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@N Oneemuss and HAL333:: I have resolved most of the comments, here below I explain why I didn't implement a few suggestions (inserting this between your bullet points would be confusing):

The source for the claim "one of the first European countries with atlas" is the same as for the following sentence.
The Atlas of the Dragonflies (Odonata) of Slovenia is bilingual (Slovene-English), so I thought the original English title would suffice. Both titles are given in the references section.
Exact years of historical and unconfirmed sightings are not given in sources available to me.
About the status of bladetail (Lindenia tetraphylla): inclusion follows the inclusion in both cited lists. How a doubtful species is treated in faunistic lists depends a bit on likelihood of confirmation - in the case of bladetail, the species has a stable population just a bit to the south on one of the Croatian islands and vagrant behavior in this species is common, so new records in the foreseeable future are likely.
"You should also add scope for the species column" - I'm afraid I don't understand this.

Hopefully this is helpful. ~ HAL333 18:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: not really. All the headers in both tables already have scope defined. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a huge deal either way. ~ HAL333 02:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~ HAL333 02:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments are welcome. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
FLC criteria:
1. The prose is fine in the table and below, where I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. Note: I skipped my usual copyediting in the lead. The coding in the table seems fine. I added {{sronly|Damselflies (Zygoptera)}} and {{sronly|Dragonflies (Anisoptera)}} as table captions. Table captions are now required by a recent RFC; the "sronly" means that they will only be visible to screen readers.
2. The lead defines the inclusion criteria.
3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
3b. The article is well-sourced to apparently reliable sources (I can't read some of them), and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any 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. The images are excellent. (Your approach reminds me of the approach I took in my lists, which you might enjoy reviewing.)
6. It is stable.
Support (but note that I haven't copyedited the main text). Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent work. A month ago, when I first checked (but did not comment), I saw some issues with the table, but they have now been fixed. A comment someone may rise relates to WP:MOSALT, but I don't know how helpful a description "A dragonfly with black and yellow stripes sitting on a finger/grass/twig" is. I was asked to provide those at WHS nominations, and it made more sense there. --Tone 08:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

Reference reliability looks fine.
For references 2 and 3, the major sources of the table's content, no page numbers have been provided. I did a source review for one recent plant FL in which the genus names were alphabetized in the book, so readers wanting to verify content would have an easy time finding the right pages without needing numbers. Do these books list species by alphabetical order or another methods easy for potential readers to use? If so, I think we're okay as is, as they will be easy enough to find. If not, it's asking a lot of readers to go through the book blindly searching for relevant pages, and I'd recommend citing specific page numbers for each species in that case.
- Page numbers are all over the place, so there is no simple way of including them. The reader can easily find species descriptions by consulting the subject index.
While on the subject of formatting, reference 2 could use a Slovenian language indicator like a few of the other cites use.
- Like explained above, ref 2 is both in Slovene and English, so the indicator would be misleading.
The link-checker tool is having problems accessing references 4 and 5. Please double-check those to make sure they are working Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed one of the links, the others are working. Thanks for the review. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:32, 10 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, 13 December 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.