Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of amphibians of Michigan/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 Dabomb87 21:56, 29 April 2012.

List of amphibians of Michigan

 * Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Presenting my latest effort in the list genre...we have (drumroll)...amphibians! I've been playing with this list over the last couple of weeks, and am at the point where I can't find further aspects to improve. Courcelles has been kind enough to take a quick look, and I think that (with his help) the issues of table formatting and accessibility have been addressed. There wasn't a lot out there to base this list on, so it's pretty much just off-the-cuff - please let me know if there is further information that should be included. Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Since you have "binomial name" shouldn't the other column be "common name"?


 * De-capitalize "Name" in "Binomial Name"


 * I'd like it if the subheadings under the "references" section were semicolons instead of subheaders, producing:


 * General references

instead of what it is now; looks cleaner


 * More information can be added. See for example a list I've been working on List of reptiles of Minnesota. The notes column can be expanded for all amphibians, including size and color.


 * One species is considered to be threatened and two species are considered endangered care to say who they are, I think that's an important detail hinted at but not elaborated upon; violates wp:LEAD.

Albacore (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, Albacore! I think I have addressed everything above. I had been waffling on adding a description column, so having someone ask for the inclusion of one helped me to make up my mind. On your last point, could you please elaborate on why this was a violation of WP:LEAD? I have added the information to the lead, but it was already present in the body, so I think the lead was a proper summary of the body previously - now it's just slightly more detailed. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support NapHit (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I didn't have any specific additions in mind for those papers I mentioned, just wondering if you had seen them. The paragraph on habitat is great addition that definitely enhances the article—thanks. I'm satisfied the article meets FL criteria, and am happy to support. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Sasata - I always appreciate your reviews, especially the lit searches that always seem to find something I missed :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that should be addressed:
 * Image review
 * File:Acris crepitans blanchardi.jpg – Source website?
 * I can't find this image anywhere on the Ohio gov website. What should I do? Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't find it there either. Three other websites using it make no contradicting copyright claims. We can't expect online sources to stay alive indefinitely, so I suppose this should be fine. Just add a link to the ODNR website.
 * Link added. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Hyla versicolor.jpg – Description page names an original uploader, but leaves it unclear whether that person is also the author.
 * This is a bit confusing. Apparently, the author (User:Dawson) uploaded the image to en.wp in May 2006 (see this, search for Hyla versicolor). It was then uploaded to zh.wp in August 2007, and that has somehow become the "original upload". So, the author is the one who originally uploaded it, and the tag is wrong. Am I allowed to just going in and change the tag to the correct "original upload"? Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're allowed. It's a wiki after all. Important is not who uploaded it, but who took the picture (see commons:Template:Information/doc for what goes where).
 * OK, I think I've dealt with this. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Pseudacris maculata.jpg – Requires cleanup.
 * I've removed the duplicate tags. If there is other cleanup that is required, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Same as above. And there's still a duplicate.
 * Removed another redundant license. Now have I got them all? :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Grenouille1.jpg – Requires date, author, and, if possible, a source URL.
 * I can't find this image anywhere on the US government website. What should I do? Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See below.
 * Replaced and tagged for deletion. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Fourtoedsalamander.jpg – Requires author, source, and general cleanup.
 * I can't find this image anywhere on the US government website. What should I do? Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as FLC is concerned, if you can't add the information necessary to comply with our image use policy and Common's own requirements, you shouldn't use the image. Beyond that, you might want to nominate the image for deletion on Commons.
 * Replaced and tagged for deletion. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that would be nice:
 * File:Pseudacris crucifer01.jpg would benefit from cropping.
 * File:Western chorus frog.jpg would benefit from cropping.
 * File:North-American-bullfrog1.jpg would benefit from using information.
 * File:Necturus maculosus maculosus.jpg would benefit from using information.
 * File:Siren intermedia 2.jpg would benefit from using information.
 * The way I understand it, Steinhart Aquarium in San Francisco is not the source, but the place where the image was taken.
 * Whoops, fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise, all used images appear to be free and properly tagged.  Good raise  20:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've added individual responses to the need to have section. For the nice to haves, I'm horrible with cropping and don't have good programs to do it with, so I'll probably leave that for someone else. I've added the information templates to the last three. Please let me know what you would like me to do with the need to have stuff - I'm afraid I wasn't too successful at finding sources for the three images that need them. Since I haven't been able to find these sources, should the images be removed from the list and tagged for deletion? Dana boomer (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied individually.  Good raise  12:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.