Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of soricines/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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of soricines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): PresN 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, mammal list #40 and the 5th and final subgroup of Eulipotyphlans: the subfamily Soricinae! It's... 150+ more shrews. They look identical to each other and to the ones in the previous shrew lists; turns out the smaller the mammal, the wider variety of species can coexist geographically, so there's as many minor variations on shrew species as there are members of every Carnivora family. They're pretty cute, I think, but not really super visually distinct from each other. If you've never seen one, it's because they're busy: shrews eat at least their own body weight in food every single day, so they're very busy vacuuming up all the bugs hiding under leaves on the forest floors. Unfortunately, this means they don't have a lot of time to pose for pictures, so, as in previous lists, the ones in Central America, southeast Asia, and the non-populated parts of China just don't have free-use pictures. As always, this list follows all the conventions we've built up over the last dozens of FLCs, and should be good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14
edit- Nothing to quibble and I see the wikilinks on the ecosystems you had mentioned in your prior nomination applied. Happy to support for promotion. Although a very minor observation (which I may be unfamiliar with), in the "Scientific name and subspecies" column, is there a reason why some scientists are in parenthetical while some are not? Pseud 14 (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pseud 14: Yep, per binomial nomenclature, you do that when the original namer put the species in a different genus than it's currently included in - so e.g. the southern short-tailed shrew is currently Blarina carolinensis, but (Bachman, 1837) originally had it as Sorex carolinensis, and that's the official way to denote that, apparently. --PresN 00:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Very interesting. Thanks for the explanation and insight into it. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pseud 14: Yep, per binomial nomenclature, you do that when the original namer put the species in a different genus than it's currently included in - so e.g. the southern short-tailed shrew is currently Blarina carolinensis, but (Bachman, 1837) originally had it as Sorex carolinensis, and that's the official way to denote that, apparently. --PresN 00:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- MPGuy2824
- Most of the dates are in mdy format, except a few that are in ymd format. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPGuy2824: Fixed! --PresN 13:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- AK
- "soricine, or a red-toothed shrew" Comma unnecessary.
- "158 extant species" Maybe use living instead of extant to cut down on jargon.
- "the other 11" to "the other 11 genera"
- "prehistoric Soricinae species" to "prehistoric soricines"
- Tables, refs, and images look fine. AryKun (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AryKun: Done, though I linked extant rather than changing to living- since we're talking about species, not individuals, "extant" is the right word for "not extinct", rather than living (vs. dead). --PresN 17:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose. AryKun (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AryKun: Done, though I linked extant rather than changing to living- since we're talking about species, not individuals, "extant" is the right word for "not extinct", rather than living (vs. dead). --PresN 17:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh
- Source review:
- 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
Looks good. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 2 July 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 2 July 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.