Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Jersey birds

List of New Jersey birds
This list is now at the same level as the other featured bird lists by state. It is introduced, organized, standardized, and illustrated. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 16:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. See above. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 16:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Gman124 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, compresensive and compelling, referenced and illustrated. Well done! --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, my goodness that's beautiful. -Phoenix 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I know I may be jumping the gun here, but this looks like one of the best articles at wikipedia, not just lists. I know Raul normally doesn't look at lists for TFA, but this is one that could break precedent.  It is undeniably one of the best works in the whole encyclopedia.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose (for now) Fails criteria 2(c): a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. I suggest a TOC like at List of California birds.-- 十  八  09:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I revised the TOC from List of North American birds. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, TOC was dealt with; very well done list.-- 十  八  23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose This list was promoted after two days. I've restored it. The procedure (detailed above) has a 10 day minimum.
 * Before folk get carried away with the pretty pictures and statements about "one of the best articles on Wikipedia" can I point out that this list would be blown away on FA since none of the prose is sourced. In this regard, it shares the problems with all the other North American bird lists that just copy each other's text. Some of these are already featured (I made similar comments on the California list). I've made my opposition "weak" since it doesn't seem to share consensus. I also have concerns about the lack of inline citations. This weakens the list's ability to check its member's verifiability, which is a problem for such a long list and one that will need to be periodically reviewed for updates. If someone were to tackle these concerns, their work could get copied to the other lists and we'd eventually see high-quality FL for all the states. As it is, it looks like these flaws will perpetuate, which is unfortunate. Colin°Talk 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The lack-of-references problem lies deeper than the lists themselves. Unfortunately, many of the bird family articles lack inline citations; it is therefore difficult to add inline citations to the prose without simply copying and pasting all non-inline references from the family articles. Inline citations within the list itself are not necessary - all of the species listed are recorded in one reliable cited list. I don't think the lack of prose inline citations is catastrophic, because most of the information is well-known. Still, your point is valid. If you have any specific suggestions after reading this comment, please share them. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 13:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are the prose sections necessary for featured bird list? The North America list did not have them when it was featured. They were added to the Oklahoma list because one commentor, Nichalp, who no longer seems active here, wanted them, so I added them to the Oklahoma list. They have since been copied to later articles. If a bird list were to come here without the prose introductions to the families, what would be the reaction now? I believe that the failure of the NA list at FA was one of things that led to the creation of FL. Dsmdgold 14:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, Although I did not work directly on this list, it is based closely on the Oklahoma list, which was my work. Dsmdgold 14:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support, the list has a good number of pictures, links to the birds. It is quite well-presented. It deserves the featured status! — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 15:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)