Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lagomorphs/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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of lagomorphs

edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PresN 23:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another animal list! This one is a capstone list, summarizing the genera of the two families in the mammal order Lagomorpha and sitting on top of list of leporids (FL) and list of ochotonids (FLC). In this, it follows the prior FLs for list of carnivorans (which was the capstone to the 9 sublists of Carnivora) and list of artiodactyls (which was the capstone to the 4 sublists of Artiodactyla) (and unlike list of perissodactyls, which was too small for sublists). Lagomorpha, aka "things that are like rabbits", has 73 species all over the world, though the two families look a little lopsided here since all of the ochotonids (pikas) are in a single genus and the rabbits are more spread out with 11. This should be the last capstone list for a while- after this it'll be mostly single-list orders, since most of the remaining larger orders are really gigantic. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.

Resolved comments from AryKun (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "recently gone extinct" → Perhaps link extinct?
  • "molecular phylogenetic analysis" → "molecular phylogenetic analysis"
  • "into named clades" → Link clade and perhaps add a gloss like (group of all the descendants of a common ancestor)
  • For all the monotypic genera, just write "rabbit" in the common name instead of "rabbits" (eg Amami rabbit instead of Amami rabbits)
  • What reference is supporting the cladogram?
  • It isn't the best illustration, but consider adding CaprolagusHispidusJASB.jpg for Caprolagus.
  • That's all. AryKun (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

edit

Goood, why did you have to make me blush with the lead image ;-;

But anyways, comments: GeraldWL 17:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Members of this order are called lagomorphs. Lagomorpha currently comprises 107 extant species"-- kind of a weird repetition when read, "lagomorphs. Lagomorphia". "It" can be a good replacement for the latter, considering the previous sentence is "Members of this order are called lagomorphs."
  • "the larger rabbit and hare group and smaller pika group"-- multiple use of "and"
  • "11 cm (4 in) long"-- shouldn't this have hyphens? Like "11 cm (4 in)-long"? Most likely not, just wondering.
  • "The domestic rabbit subspecies of the European rabbit has been domesticated"-- I suggest a link to the last word, as having two words of "domestic" that are unrelated to each other is just weird.
  • "Leporidae, containing the hares and rabbits"-- I suggest changing "containing" to "comprising" for consistency, and "containing" just sounds kinda off in context.
  • Should "families" be linked?
  • "The 73 extant species of Leporidae"-- extant duplicate link
  • Link cottontail rabbits
  • Sylvagus (linked just prior) redirects there, since it's the common name for the genus (I prefer to link to the formal genus names when possible for consistency, since most genera don't have articles at their common name). --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should digit-ize "thirty-three", "twenty-seven", and "thirty-four", considering you wrote 12 in digits; plus many people including me have trouble reading numbers above 20 in words.
  • In the bullet lists, shouldn't each of the animals be linked?
  • Additionally, within the conventions and classification sections, you might wanna link "genera", "extinct", "extant", "order", "Lagomorpha", and "families". The body is a whole different part of the article than the lead, so typically relinking is needed.
  • "The following classification is based on the taxonomy described by Mammal Species of the World"-- perhaps a lil bit description of the work? Like "the book" or "the reference work" etc? Don't want readers to keep on tapping links.
  • "Members of the Leporidae family"-- assuming my previous point on the linking is implemented, this link here must be removed as duplicate.
  • In the table, the Oryctolagus image is also the same as the lead image. Isn't it a kind of repetition? I suggest changing another image for the table (not for the lead please I love that lead image so much)
  • Also for the Oryctolagus row: the map images have two colors but you only highlight one as relevant; is there a way the orange can be removed? Also I don't think it's pink, more like purple.
  • Oh, looks like someone made a new version of the image a couple weeks ago that changed the color. Mentioned what orange is for instead of removing it, I think it's notable that it's not native to most of its range --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like this is a clearer picture for the Romerolagus, what do you think?
  • "Annamite Range in Southeast Asia and Sumatra"-- but Sumatra is part of SEA, though (i should know i live here). That sentence also implied that the Annamite also comprises Sumatra but the article says "Laos, Vietnam, and a small area in northeast Cambodia".
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks so much for the detailed review! Addressed all of your points, sorry for taking so long. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks all good now, and that new Oryctolagus-- ajfvksjdbcdcs how can I not like it! But anyways, it seems like this article is all good now, so Imma support. Good stuff! :) GeraldWL 02:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: reminder that since I wrote this list, one of you two has to evaluate it for promotion. --PresN 14:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

edit

I am still new to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments on my review are welcome. This review will focus on the lede, prose, and understandability.

  • "come in two main groupings of body plans," Recommend wikilinking body plans; as a non-biologist expert, I do not know what this means so the wikilink might help. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Classification" is ref 1 verifying all the information in this section? If so, I recommend that ref 1 also be placed after "Modern molecular studies indicate that the 12 genera can be grouped into 2 families." to clarify that it is verifying the introduction sentences.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Both done, thanks! --PresN 02:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – All of the references used appear to be both reliable and well-formatted, and no issues were identified by the link-checker tool. This source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:56, 27 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_lagomorphs/archive1&oldid=1085191993"