Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of miniopterids/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) 12:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of miniopterids

Featured list candidates/List of miniopterids/archive1

Nominator(s): Pres N 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back with bats list #3 and mammal list #44: Miniopteridae. These are the 31 species of bent-winged bats, once again a pack of very small bats (the size of your thumb, or at most two thumbs) but this time with oversized wings. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family... there's some disagreement on if some of the Southeast Asia species should be split up into multiple, but this is where it stands today. Thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - always very straightforward to review your animal lists, @PresN: :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Pass. Licenses are fine, images are appropriate. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

You know the drill.
Executive summary: I didn't find any problems.
Checking the FLC criteria:
1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
4. It is navigable.
5. It meets style requirements. See above for the image review.
6. It is stable.
Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

Reliable enough for the information being cited
Consistent date formatting
Consistent and proper reference formatting
Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Support. If it were anybody else who kept so flawlessly pulling off their references, I would assume I was missing something. Not that I'd ever try these lists, they're too much for me, but I have found it neat to be doing the source reviews on these bat lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2024 (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) 01:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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