User:Pengo/taxrant

(still in progress)

Unbalanced top heading
The How to read a taxobox link in the taxobox unbalances the heading, making it look messy, and off-center.

"Conservation status" vs "Red List Category"
The term Conservation status is an odd one. The IUCN uses the term "Red List Category". We've also got some categories that look awkward with either heading: "Fossil" and "Prehistoric"

"Conservation status" heading not needed
The words "Endangered species" or "Extinct" convey all the information you need. You don't need to tell the reader that this is some sort of "conservation status".

Status in the main heading area?
Adding the conservation status to the heading was probably an attempt to squeeze it in without affecting the overall taxobox, but it does. Originally the font was much smaller, but it has grown and is intrusive. It needs its own pink heading and white text like the rest of the data.

Status source?
There is no source information on where the conservation status comes from.

(lc) (nt) (cd)
We write out the words "Conservation status: Lower risk" in full and then abbrevriate the most important part! What the hell? Most readers won't be able to tell the difference between "least concern" and "Near Threatened".

Secure? LC?
Do we really need to add the category of "Secure" to IUCN's list? Least concern already covers this. And do we even need to have the category of Least Concern? This covers a huge number of plants and animals; even the common rock pigeon is classed as LC. Perhaps it should be restricted to species which once had a riskier status, like the Bald Eagle

No Picture?
The image breaks up the taxobox nicely. If there isn't one, a space is still needed. e.g. fr:Civette indienne. Note also that the colours for the top heading and the rest are a little different, correctly conveying the different function of the heading levels.