Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of birds of Georgia (U.S. state)/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 not promoted by Dabomb87 23:50, 13 February 2011.

List of birds of Georgia (U.S. state)

 * Nominator(s): The Bushranger One ping only 07:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it's another one of the ongoing series of United States state bird lists, several of which have passed FL. This one follows the same format as the others, but with additional citations. Stepping aside from the other stuff, it's a goodly-formatted list that is comprehensive, well-illustrated, and sourced to the official lists, therefore it's accurate and complete. (If I do say so myself.) So hopefully another US bird list will hit FL! - The Bushranger One ping only 07:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments - There are no distinctions between Notes and in-line citations. Also if I'm reading the in-lines correctly there are only 3 which brings me to my next point why are there 3 in-line citations? Afro  ( Talk ) 12:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I usually edit over at WP:MILHIST, where generically 'Notes' refers to the in-line citations. But I've changed it to 'Citations' to clarify that, hope it helps. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok you have 7 in-line citations its a relief, but let me demonstrate my concern with the way you're citing as you're essentially unspecific. If I google 2, 3, 7 for example Georgia Official State List Georgia Reportable Species List GOSRC hypothetical species list no specific results pop up verifying this information. Afro  ( Talk ) 23:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see. They were referring to the entries in the Biography with the links, but I've re-factored the references so that the links are directly in the in-line citations now, which should clear that up? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – I honestly don't see why it's necessary to cite the number of Georgian birds in each family. The source provided does not explicitly provide those numbers, and it could easily be regarded as common knowledge – all you have to do is count the birds. Focus (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure about that, based on citation requirements vs common-knowledge and the other bird lists. I'll remove them (allowing them to be re-added if it's desired) if it's desired, but I think the DYK people might get twitchy if there isn't one citation per paragraph... - The Bushranger One ping only 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've verified the hook myself at DYK, and I don't think you'll have any problems there. Birds of PA was recently a DYK and is now a FLC and doesn't have those types of refs. I have a few more comments which I'll get up later, after that I'll be happy to support. Focus (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Images should be in standard thumb size instead of forced size (per Images). --Snek01 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I forced the size since they appeared oversize otherwise, but I can fix that, if it's really necessary? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Images doesn't say you absolutely must use thumbs. It says, "As a rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default. If an exception to the general rule is warranted..." so if you set the images to less than 220px, there should be no problem at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, MOS:IMAGES says explicitly "The thumbnail option may be used ("thumb"), or another size may be fixed.", so this issue is void. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Oppose
 * All of the images need alt text (see WP:ALT).
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BOLDTITLE, the title should not be bolded unless the title appears exactly as it is in the first sentence.
 * The first sentence comes off awkwardly: "The List of Georgia birds lists"... is there a better way of saying that?
 * I think a good example to go off for this list is List of birds of Maryland for the lead. Either way, I'll try and add more comments in the coming days-- nice work. Nomader  ( Talk ) 23:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll get to working on these. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've moved to oppose; although you've addressed the alt images problem, the lead still most definitely needs work. Some further comments: Sorry to this, but I want to make sure that if this passes FLC, the lead gets trimmed up first. Nomader ( Talk ) 18:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Look over WP:LSC. It explains that the lead for a list should summarize any background information (which this list does not do right now-- it simply says that this is a list which lists every species in Georgia). The Georgia list should include what kind of birds are commonly found, which birds are the most prevalent, etc.
 * The article still violates WP:BOLDTITLE and references itself in the lead. You can put the criteria in a key at the top of the list or something of the sort, but the lead should be written like the lead of any other article.
 * Again, look at List of birds of Maryland for what I consider to be a better lead of a bird article. It's not as self-referential.
 * No worries. :) It's been taking awhile for me to get around to this; my editing brain tends to skip around and takes awhile to get back to an 'editing mood' for an article once my brain has 'moved on to the next one'. It might be awhile, so I think it might be best to withdraw from FLC for now, address the issues over time, then re-submit when they're all done. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the same reasons I opposed the Pennsylvania one (lack of refs and lack of details besides the name entries) Nergaal (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Lack of refs" - the entire list is referenced, to the Georgia Ornithological Society. The section-by-section refs were removed per an earlier comment, but I'll reinstate them. What details are you looking for? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nergaal, I'm interested in whether you think the current solution is in anyway appealing, i.e. the repetitious use of ref 2 which results in it having around 60 re-uses, which looks appalling in the references. I have, in the past, recommended a caveat statement at the start of the list, i.e. "Unless otherwise noted, content is referenced by ..." and link to the ref once.  On a more general note, I'm not sure what "General references" (in a number of lists) would represent in your opinion if they cite most of the list?  Perhaps worth a discussion, a little bit like the one we had about general refs on the Olympic list (which I can't see right now, to link back to...) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with this list is that it contains a ton of sections, and IMO every section should be referenced. The fact that one a single reference is used it only emphasizes that this list relies too much on a single second-party source. If this list would be instead expanded along the lines of List of non-marine molluscs of Dominica, both the lack of sourcing (or sourcing from a single web entry), and the lack of details would be solved. Nergaal (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, every other possible source would simply be using the official GOS list as its source, making it a circluar argument. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it looks ridiculous to have that many citations to the same ref. If the whole list are using a single source, we don't need more than the General list at the bottom, and maybe a note in the beginning. I don't like when are own "rules" (like every paragraph should have a citation) are more important than getting an article as good as possible, Ignore all rules! If the list uses only one source, there are no benefits at all to repeat that ref 60 times. And an official list is probably the best source to use. If there are other independent lists, they could be used too if they are reliable. (PS. I too think that every section normally should have at least one ref, but not if there are a good reason not to. Like the fact that all sections are using the same source.) 85.11.25.101 (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it would ne a third party source. Nergaal (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? When it comes to bird lists, there are no "third party sources". Bird lists aren't like state lists of mammals, mollusks, or even trees. Every U.S. state (with, as I recall, the exception of Idaho) has a state Ornithological Society. Each Ornithological Society has a Records Committee, whose task is to review submitted records of rare birds (defined by the Review List) and determine whether or not the bird in question is verifiable as the species it is claimed to be. If so, the record is Accepted, and, in the case of first state records, added to the Official State List. If it can't be determined for sure that the bird is what it's claimed to be (or, even if it is, that the bird isn't an escapee...), then the bird does not go on the Official State List. And if the bird isn't submitted for Records Committee review, it also does not go on the Official State List. When it comes to what birds occur on a List of Birds of (State Name Here), the (State Name Here) Ornithological Society doesn't just have the final say, it has the only say. NO other sources of "birds of (State)" are reliable sources - they either follow the state Records Commitee's decisions and state Ornithological Society's list, or their information is not verifiable. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Section "New World quail (BTW why not in plural form?): why no linking to New World and Old World?
 * Section "Storm Petrels": why you linked "petrels" the second time. It was already linked in the section above.
 * Section "Ospreys": Monotypic -> Monotypic taxon
 * Section "Limpkins (Pumpkins :))": Why do you link "birds"?
 * Section "Oystercatchers": again the link to "bird"

Other wise good list.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I'll see what I can do about those, I'm in the middle of adding alt-text to all the pics first before getting to everything else. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry for the delays on this, I'll try to get all the concerns addressed this week. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm sorry but I just don't think this list is ready for FL status yet. Many of my comments here are the same as the Pennsylvania birds list though. First I don't like the non-table list format. I think its allowed and that won't keep me from voting a support if the other issues are satisfied but IMO for a featured list I think we should be using tables. Take a look at List of Medal of Honor recipients for an example of a table list if you need one. On the issue of reliable references you mentioned earlier. I agree for many the only reference would be the ones you mentioned but I would argue that a well published and widely respected periodical like National Geographic, Nature, the Smithsonian (magazine) or any number of others would be a reliable source and although they undoubtedly use the references you mentioned would IMO also do some of their own research as well. Why wouldn't these be acceptable references for at least some of the birds or information.
 * There are almost no inline citations throughout the list but there are a lot of facts. IMO even the individual birds should have some kind of reference.
 * I think a bit more information should be given about each group. I know its a pretty big list but I think in most cases we could give more than one general sentance. Maybe some details about a couple of the birds in the group? How to tell the difference between Male and female or does the feathers look different when they are young than when they mature? What do the eggs look like. Do they live in the mud, trees, cliffs, etc? What do they eat?
 * I think placing the groups in some logical order would be good as well. I would recommend common name but Order or family would be ok too.
 * Some of the named links redirect to a completely different name such as Black-bellied Plover which links to Grey Plover. I recommend clarifying which name it should be and making them match.
 * Commons has recorded files of the vocal sounds of several of these birds and I recommend adding some of those as well.
 * Which ones are extinct? You mention in the lede that 2 were extinct but I couldn't find them in the list.
 * You mention that "a recent member of the avifauna family" is extinct but this family isn't listed on the list at all. Was that the only bird in the family that lived in Georgia or are there others as well?
 * I thought we dropped the "this list is about X" verbiage? I recommend the lede be rephrased to lose this.
 * There is 1 Disambiguous link for White Ibis. I assume it should be American White Ibis but Im not sure. --Kumioko (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to the rest of your concerns later, but I do want to comment now on "I think placing the groups in some logical order would be good as well. I would recommend common name but Order or family would be ok too." The birds are, currently, listed in taxonomic order by order, then by family, per the American Ornithologists' Union. I'll probably use additional refs from the Annotated Checklist as well. As for the format, I simply used the same format that's been used for the other "lists of birds of (state)" that have become FLs.... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Withdraw for now
 * Considering the issues raised above, I think it might be best to withdraw this article from FLC from the time being. I assumed that since this was a direct derivative of the other "List of birds of (U.S. State)" pages that were already at FLC, it would be a cinch, but it seems there's more work needed than I thought and I want to be able to take the time to do it right rather than having the FLC/WikiCup clock ticking while my brain tries to get in gear. So, I'd like to withdraw the article from FLC for now; I'll work on it at a relaxed pace to hopefully clear up all the concerns, and once that's done I'll resubmit it. Thanks all for the comments and suggestions. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


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