Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of cetacean species/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 kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 22:41:44 6 January 2020 (UTC).

List of cetacean species

 * Notified: WP:CETA, WP:WPLISTS, User:Dunkleosteus77


 * "The following is a list..." archaic and discouraged wording
 * Do you have any recommendations?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the subject matter enough to recommend an alternate, but "This is a list" is frowned upon. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it not a list? You shouldn’t feel compelled to avoid recognizing it is in fact a list  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is a list is not the point. TPH is correct that "This is a list..." or the like is not an appropriate way to open a Featured List.  But I think the revised current opening to the list is fine. Rlendog (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While I'm not the FL nominator, I disagree. Lists are not articles, and their style reflects that. Saying "this is a list of ..." (followed by short explations of key terms) is common encyclopedic list writing, as it's short and to the point. Current FLs that state they're lists include: List of countries without armed forces, List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque, List of mammals of Canada, List of mammals of Florida, List of European Union member states by political system, etc. VF9 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Lead overall is way too short. Three sentences for such a huge list.
 * I expanded it a little, but this is a list so the lead doesn't have to be so big  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Vast stretches are entirely unsourced. I get that it's a summary of content largely sourced elsewhere, but it still feels undersourced.
 * Where specifically? If you're talking about the footnotes, it's the IUCN website which is already hyperlinked in the table  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Way too many footnotes with poorly written trivia like "Virtually nothing is known about the abundance of Baird's beaked whales, except they are not rare as was formerly thought" which is also unsourced.
 * Seems like appropriate usage of footnotes to me  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's still unsourced, vague, and informally written. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * that reads pretty formal to me, and the IUCN link is the ref. To create a footnote ref would be redundant  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The "cetacean needed" thing is cute, but I don't think it lends credence to a supposedly "featured" content
 * this was already discussed as a harmless note  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Several sourcing errors, including a "missing URL" error and otherwise incomplete citations.
 * I see just the 1 ref with an error, are there any other incomplete or otherwise incorrect citations or is it just the 1?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delist – per nom. Clearly no longer FL worthy, especially just based on the lead. – zmbro (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think it's not bad, I'd like to see MOS:ACCESS applied to the tables for row/col scopes, and units converted, but otherwise it's alright. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did the unit conversions but what specifically about scopes are you looking for?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 03:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also column headers in the middle of tables which is all over the article. While these accessibility fixes are pretty straight forward, if the article doesn't do them, I fail to see how its status can be kept when it clearly fails FL criteria #5. I'll note that it's been over 3 months since this issue was raised here. --Gonnym (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That never seemed to be a problem at FLC  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 03:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * does the FL criteria care about following the guideline about column headers mid-table? --Gonnym (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, FLC does concern itself with technical compliance to things like ACCESS. This is a particularly esoteric example.  I'm going to ping User:RexxS to see if that element of ACCESS still needs such consideration, given I've seen mid-table headings all over this place and wasn't particularly aware of the accessibility consequences. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The mid-table headings are sub-section headings, not column headings, so won't cause a problem if the actual column headings are marked up with scope. I've now done that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This nomination has been open for months without consensus to delist, so I'm going to go ahead and close it. -- Pres N  22:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


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