Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of birds of Pennsylvania/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 The Rambling Man 23:36, 11 February 2011.

List of birds of Pennsylvania

 * Nominator(s): Focus (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria and is comparable in quality to other bird lists. I created and worked on this in my user space and it was a DYK earlier today. I used the template Bird list header, which is not widely used but is used in other lists (eg list of birds of California), and I believe it works well. Thanks, Focus (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – accessibility issues have been resolved. --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments - Why is the only in-line citation a note? Afro  ( Talk ) 12:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed the header to 'footnotes', is that better? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Focus (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now there's two which is good, however my point is that whole sections are unreferenced due to the lack of in-line citations though I don't doubt that the two Works consulted covers most of the article and they are fine as they are, it would make it easier for the reader for readers to associate material with more specific sources as well. Afro  ( Talk ) 23:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the same issue that User:The Rambling Man has brought up below. The family accounts are pretty standard from list to list, and most, if not all, of the information could be considered common knowledge within the field. Thus, none of the bird lists, including many FLs, have inline citations for these sections. I hope I'm making sense here. Focus (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, what you're saying is comprehensible, but you need to consider whether it meets what is required by WP:V: "This policy requires that ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." Although the information is common knowledge in the field, I'm not sure that is sufficient for a general encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point; however, if this is the consensus, every other bird list will need to be reassessed. I could try to incorporate references into the template, but due to the nature of the template I'd have to use Harvard referencing. Would it be okay to use harvard refs and regular refs in the same article? Otherwise I'd have to remove the template altogether and use regular inline refs. Focus (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are free to bring any other bird lists to FLRC if they don't meet standards but can we just focus on this list. My suggestion would be to add the changes regarding references and we can always critique the changes to improve how we verify the information. Afro  ( Talk ) 05:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if this preventing it from achieving FL status, I will be forced to withdraw this nomination (or let it fail) and work on references at a later date. I am extremely busy with school and more urgent, real life projects to afford spending a lot of time on something like this. Hope you understand. Focus (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting all the prose, from section to section, are referenced "generally"? E.g., "... feathers that are excellent at shedding water due to special oils. There are 131 species world wide, 61 North American species, and 42 Pennsylvania species..."
 * I'm pretty sure this was brought up before in a FLC, and it was determined that the family accounts are 'common knowledge'. They're pretty much the same for all the lists, especially since this one uses that template. Focus (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not convinced. I'm not knowledgeable in birds at all so your "common knowledge" is my "completely unknown". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The text is standard among pretty much all of the bird lists, including 20 or so FL, and none of which have inline references in the family accounts. I can't see how this list should be an exception. Focus (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "They are the only birds that can fly backwards." citation?
 * See above; this qualifies as common knowledge.
 * Not convinced. Would prefer a citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As TRM has raised the hyphenation issues, I should note there are multiple other problems with inconsistent or incorrect use of hyphens that I spotted:
 * "Cormorants are medium-to-large aquatic birds" (inconsistent with the next excerpt; use one or the other)
 * "Herons and Egrets are medium to large sized wadng birds" (+ should be 'wading')
 * "Rallidae is a large family of small-to medium-sized birds" (space required before "to"; i.e. "small- to medium-sized")
 * "The family Charadriidae includes the plovers, dotterels, and lapwings. They are small-to medium-sized birds" (ditto)
 * "The Scolopacidae are a large diverse family of small-to medium-sized" (ditto)
 * "Kingfishers are medium sized birds" (hyphen)
 * "Woodpeckers are small to medium sized birds" (hyphen: should be "small- to medium-sized")
 * "The vireos are a group of small to medium sized passerine birds" (ditto)
 * "The Thrushes are a group of passerine birds that occur mainly but not exclusively in the Old World. They are plump, soft plumaged, small to medium sized insectivores" (ditto)
 * "Starlings are small-to medium-sized Old World passerine birds" (space required before "to"; i.e. "small- to medium-sized")
 * "The tanagers are a large group of small-to medium-sized passerine birds" (ditto)
 * Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All fixed, to my knowledge. Focus (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but check out Barn owls – I missed that one originally. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose this is nowhere near what I would expect a featured list to look like:
 * it severely lacks citations: for example there is no quick way to verify the accuracy of a simple section like the ducks one.
 * it is extremely unappealing/not engaging: just a list of bullets with almost nothing else than a few random pictures
 * there is no context provided: yes, at 400 entries long it is pretty big already, but how about estimated populations, or weather they nest in the state all year round, or weather they nest in specific areas (i.e. urban, nigh altitude, etc.)


 * Comment The source is the Pennsylvania Society for Ornithology, but that organization does not have an article. It seems to me that is a serious omission in granting FL status for this list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Searching for "Pennsylvania Society for Ornithology" produces plenty of Google hits from third-parties, and 23 hits on Scholar (mostly citations of their publications). I expect that it's a perfectly reliable source for birds in Pennsylvania, and probably notable enough for an article in its own right – if someone is interested enough to write it. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sure it is a reliable source, but I would want an article about it if this list is to become a Featured List. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessarily required. If independent evidence can prove the organisation publishes reliable information there's no problem from the featured list criteria perspective. If Dthomsen8 wishes to write the article, so much the better!  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I came here from a discussion at WT:MOS. I was told that one of my comments (on the question of whether it was acceptable to include links in section headers as the list currently does) would be helpful here, so I'm reproducing it:
 * I too oppose links in section headers on aesthetic grounds. Part of the justification for the MoS is to give Wikipedia a consistent style, so if consensus here is that links in section headers are unaesthetic, then that is a valid reason for forbidding them (even though it is not currently the given reason). So far I have never encountered a case where it was difficult to move a link in a section header to the body of the text, and that is true in your case as well. For example, under "Pelicans", the text begins, "Pelicans are...". Under "Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets", the text begins, "The family Ardeidae contains the herons, egrets, and bitterns." There are a few exceptions cases where the name of the linked birds does not appear in the paragraph, such as "Old World warblers and Gnatcatchers". (BTW, one of these exceptions, "Ibises and Spoonbills", has inconsistent formatting, since the order and family are not on a line of their own. Plus the description is oddly short.) By far the names of the birds do appear, usually in the first sentence and often in the first few words. I think it would be easy to adapt the article to the MoS's stated requirements, and I think that's what ought to be done.
 * Besides the issues I mentioned above, I like the list. Ozob (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the template which I used in this list generates the headers (and the links), as well as the family accounts automatically. The only way to have the links in the prose would be to either edit the template itself, or to remove the template altogether and just use plain text for the headers and prose. I don't have enough time on my hands to do something like this manually, so unless I find a faster way I'm afraid the article will have to stay as it is. If this is causing you to oppose (or at least not support) this FL candidate, I will have to let it fail and address the concerns at a later date. Thank you for your comments and time however, and your input is greatly appreciated. Focus (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the template. Ozob (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks a lot!


 * Oppose - I'm sorry but I just don't think this list is ready for FL status yet. First I don't like the non-table list format. I think its allowed 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.
 * 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?
 * There are some broken brackets (just look for [[[.
 * 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 Bereal owl which links to Tengmalm's Owl. I recommend clarifying which one 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. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to withdraw this FL candidate. It appears that the expectations for a FL bird list have considerably changed, and I lack the time (and to be honest, the motivation) to deal with these issues at the moment. Focus (talk) 22:05, 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.