Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of invasive species in the Everglades/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 The Rambling Man 23:10, 12 March 2010.

List of invasive species in the Everglades

 * Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I used Willow's List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein as a guide. This is my first constructed list and I started it half-heartedly over a year ago, to re-start it and finish it recently as an accompaniment to a suite of articles about the Everglades. Was fun to do. Please let me know what I can do to improve it. Thank you! Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Great job on this informative list so far! Reywas92 Talk 21:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments Support
 * Go right into discussing the invasive species. Most of the first paragraph should be cut; you don't need the details (river size, speed, borders) about the Everglades like that, just have a link.
 * by the year 2000
 * Colloquial name → Common name
 * I didn't read all the species descriptions, but they look very good. I'll take a better look later.


 * I took out the year and changed colloquial to common, but I think there is value in including a brief description of the Everglades, mainly because it is still seen as a great stinking swamp impeding human progress instead of a massive river-fed network of ecosystems, and the urban areas are in the Everglades, not really just bordering them. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should still start with some info about invasive species, then have a brief description. In a way, say that there are many invasive species, which is caused by being surrounded by urban areas, rathen than that the Everglades are this big but are surrounded by urban areas, and therefore have invasive species. Reywas92 Talk 22:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Does this article fully list all the invasive species in the region? I am asking because I want to make sure that this complies to the comprehensiveness criterion.— Chris! c / t 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Does it list every exotic species? No. Such a list could not exist on Wikipedia. I have not found a single list to cover all species considered invasive by a single agency or authority since 1994. I have listed species that have received mention by more than one reliable source. Some species, such as the Cuban Tree Frog are on one list but not on another. I do not expect this list to be finished at any point in the present or near future since this is an ongoing problem. --Moni3 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You might consider putting dynamic list on there, then. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant to say.— Chris! c / t 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did not know such a thing existed. Seems to be reasonable. Does it go at top or bottom? Or elsewhere? --Moni3 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Top of "Plant species" section should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Done. --Moni3 (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Looks basically good but some questions. bamse (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorting: Please make the "Notes and references" columns unsortable. Also the usefulness of the sorting feature of "Origin / Year(s) introduced" as implemented now is questionable. You could make it (with hidden sort keys) sort such that locations from one continent are together after sorting. Or have it sort by year.
 * Why don't you use the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council lists as  reference for inclusion instead of having an incomplete list?
 * It seems that you use words such as "exotic", "invasive" (and possibly others) synonymously. Isn't there a
 * The mammal table has no years. Could you add at least a rough (century) date?


 * The Notes/References columns are now unsortable.
 * Thanks.bamse (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Century included for mammals
 * Thanks bamse (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I included species on these lists that were mentioned by at least two reliable sources with details about their effects on the Everglades ecosystems. The FEPPC is a more inclusive list with much less detail. The South Florida Water Management District includes more detail, naming and detailing the most aggressive species and their effects as a "priority list". Following the FEPPC list would leave most of the information blank. I followed inclusion criteria set by the South Florida Water Management District, author Thomas Lodge, and comments made by the editors and writers of Strangers in Paradise: Impact Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida.
 * I see. That makes sense. bamse (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead discusses the difference between exotic and invasive. Are you asking for clarification? --Moni3 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Must have missed that. No clarification necessary. bamse (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

All of the above comments have been addressed. Before I can support, two quick questions: Is "catfishes" correct? Why are there sometimes two scientific names; are these two distinct species? bamse (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wondered if I would get that question... Fishes refers to different species of fish. Since two species are discussed, Pterygoplichthys multiradiatus and Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus, I used the plural species version of fish. They are similar species with similar effects that are, according to the sources, grouped together, almost interchangeable at least when referring to their invasive status in Florida. With the Paratachardina lobata lobata and Paratachardina pseudolobata, it is unclear if the species is going through a scientific recategorization or renaming. They names refer to the same species, but the sources are not clear on a transition in recategorization. The article for Paratachardina pseudolobata does not help for this. My best sources refer to Paratachardina lobata lobata, but the image refers to Paratachardina pseudolobata. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Makes a lot of sense to group them together in this case. No reason to oppose and therefore support. (You might want to unify the phrases: " Imported by/through pet trade"). bamse (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did that, and thanks. Didn't even realize I was inconsistent. --Moni3 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The prose is generally good though there were some parts I stumbled over or thought might be improved. I lack the time tonight to point out specific examples but I may have a chance later, or you could ask one of our more literary editors to cast their eyes over it. Overall it seems fine. The lead sections are good and make me wonder if you had more material on the topic? Would shifting the article name to Invasive species in the Everglades give you the freedom to expand on the topic while maintaining a good size list within? I'd still be happy to regard it for a Featured List even if the prose dominated. Just a thought. I nearly opposed this on "comprehensive" when I compared its mere 28 entries to the long lists of exotic species in the external links. But this is just the Everglades, not all Florida, and this is just invasive exotics, not all exotics. I've checked some of the sources and the list does contain the priority invasive entries listed that I could find. I've made a suggestion on an alternative layout on the talk page. It can be done at the expense of sortability, which is of doubtful utility given the data and size of each list. I haven't checked the alt text. I was a bit surprised that some of the entries were redlinks, particularly Hydrilla verticilata which the description says is extremely common worldwide. Sorry this is a bit rushed. Colin°Talk 19:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Check the toolbox; there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments  from Interesting list; very well done. I could find only a few things to nitpick:
 * "Old world climbing fern blanketing a tree island" I had to read this in the image caption a couple times to understand what is being said. Perhaps a hyphen or two is necessary?
 * Florida should be linked on its first appearance (right now it is mentioned in the first sentence but linked only in the second).
 * "exotic species get more attention" Better verb than "get" would be nice ... maybe "attract"?
 * Is it worth mentioning which category the species listed belong in?
 * "The infestations are recent and long term effects in protected and threatened areas are currently under study." "currently" is a dated, vague word; if you had some kind of time frame you could specify ("as of "), that would be good.
 * Link for "Tamiami Trail"?
 * Font size in the tables is inconsistent.
 * I know you use an atypical page notation style, but some page ranges in the refs are preceded by "pp.", while others are preceded by "p." I was further confused because I saw pages such as "p. 9-3." Is that a range, or is there a page numbered "9-3"? Anyway, I trust you can sort this out.
 * Except for that little issue, citation formatting checks out and the sources are reliable and of high quality. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you rephrase this, I do not understand: Is it worth mentioning which category the species listed belong in? If this refers to the plant species being in Cateogry I or II, all in this list are in the Category I as explained in the last paragraph of prose in the Plants section, before the list.
 * On rereading my comment, I don't know what I meant either. So I contented myself by fixing a typo in that section. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked the tables, which list font-size as 95% in all. I cannot see a size difference so I may need assistance here.
 * There was only one instance where size was difference, so I fixed it myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the sources is Chapter 9: The Status of Nonindigenous Species in the South Florida Environment, and all page numbers read 9-x from this source. They are not ranges. I do tend to forget to do pp for ranges sometimes though. I spot checked the ref list to make sure I got all ranges with two p's. Let me know if I missed any.
 * Looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think everything else has been changed, per your suggestions.
 * Thanks for your comments and for reading the list! --Moni3 (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not got time to fully review the list at the moment (so I cannot "support"). All I will say is that it appears good and I can declare that the images are fine. Best of luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  12:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Truco
 * General
 * Alt text, contributors, and dab/external links check out fine.
 * Fix the images noted in the review above^.
 * Images seem to be resolved; two were relicensed and the rest were deleted. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * The overflow forms a very shallow river about 60 miles (97 km) wide and 100 miles (160 km) long that travels about half a mile a day. -- I think per day would fit better here.
 * Fixed. At first glance nothing's wrong with the original, but upon further review I agree that the "a ... a" repetition grates. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FL's usually have an overall count or overview of the list stats-wise, ie. the amount of species overall, the amount of animals or plants, etc.
 * Not as useful as in most FLs, since this list is incomplete and there are probably many other species that have yet to be identified in reliable sources. In any case, there are some overall count sentences, such as "As of 2010 1,392 additional non-native plant species have been identified and established themselves in South Florida." Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tables
 * Info like 'possibly introduced' is verified by the references correct? Because if not, it sounds WP:POV-ish.-- T ru  c o   503 18:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked a couple of the sources, and they do indeed verify the uncertainty. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Dabomb, this appeared after I logged off last night. I'll do what I can to answer questions as they are presented, beyond what Dabomb has. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


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