Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of threatened fauna 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 not promoted by NapHit 16:11, 20 September 2012.

List of threatened fauna of Michigan

 * Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Presenting another Michigan fauna article...this time a listing of the threatened, endangered and special concern species in the state. I look forward to your comments, and thanks in advance for the reviews! Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment You may want to explain the ranks, eg Special Concern is rather vague. Maybe state the inclusion of animals in a rank. I would add this information in a box or in the lead. Also I am not sure why you capitalicized "Common Name" etc. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi GOP, and thanks for your comments. I'm not sure what further information you're looking for on SC species - I thought that the last three sentences of the first paragraph of the lead were fairly informative about what a special concern listing entails. Also not sure what you mean by "the inclusion of animals in a rank"? I think I've fixed the table headers. Dana boomer (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Too many red links violates criteria 5a. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 07:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the term rank is never explained in the context of the table. Too many red links. Afro  ( Talk ) 08:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To the two comments above: I do plan to work on creating more of these articles, and had in fact meant to do some already, but was sidetracked by family commitments. I honestly don't think the current redlinks harm the integrity of the list. Also, Afkatk, what do you meant by "the term rank is never explained in the context of the table"? A major part of the lead is devoted to explaining the different categories of listing (endangered/threatened/special concern/federal vs. state, etc). Dana boomer (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You may take your time, I will strike off my comment once its done. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be much better to remove the red links and add them later once the article is created, otherwise depending on how long it takes to reduce them it might be easier to renominate the list at a later date. Afro  ( Talk ) 10:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Red links are not a bad thing, see WP:REDLINK, which specifically says "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article." Removing these links would do nothing to help the reader's experience, and could actually harm it if a name had been delinked, but then had an article created and never re-linked. Dana boomer (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that red links aren't bad, but the FL criteria call for "a minimal proportion" of them. I counted 120 red links out of the 400 or so items in the tables. Is that too many? It's a judgement call. I personally don't think so, and am not in love with the criterion in general (because it creates the gray area that lists like this one fall into), but it is on the books and should be respected. The best advice I can give is to continue pecking away at the red links, as you appear to be doing. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, through a combination of tweaking links and creating articles, I've dropped the number of red links to 81, out of the 400 or so, a decrease of almost 40 from the time of Giant's count, and more than 40 since the first comments on red links. I would appreciate additional comments on this topic at this point... Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm quite impressed with how many links you were able to turn blue in less than a week. As I said, I don't have an issue with the current number of red links, but it is a subjective matter. If there are continued complaints, you could always create a few more articles. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 20:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


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