Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 IMatthew 12:44, 26 September 2009.

List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago

 * Notifed: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, WikiProject Caribbean, Guettarda

User:Dabomb87 edited this page a month ago with an edit comment about what needs doing, but nothing has happened so far.

My main concern is that there is only one source for referencing, and it is used as some sort of general ref, without page numbers for each entry or any other inline cites. The book isn't available at any branches of County of Los Angeles Public Library or I would have done this myself. Are there any other books or websites on this subject?

I'm not impressed with the "X" and empty cells either. yes/no could be used instead. Where are the sources for the footnotes? The book again, I presume, but we don't know that. Since the page relys on one source, anything could have been added and we wouldn't know.

There isn't much prose, but as with most of the older FLs, it could do with being updated a little. Pages should't start with "This is a list of snakes that have been recorded in Trinidad and Tobago" any more. The sentence "Snakes have only been recorded on one island off Tobago, Little Tobago." makes it sound like "Tobago, Little Tobago" is a place, but that isn't what it means. Probably that Little Tobago is the only island off Tobago where snakes have been found.

It would be unfortunate to see this delisted, it's one of the least populated topics at FL. Some more references and formatting, and a bit of prose TLC is all that is needed to save it. Matthewedwards : Chat  03:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Boos' book is pretty definitive on the topic. Murphy's book (which I don't have access to) on the reptiles of TT should cover much of this ground, but it's older and less detailed.  I've seen a list of snakes on a page associated with the TT biodiversity clearinghouse, but it was an (uncredited) copy of this page.  Most of the records are supported by museum collections (many of the Boos' own work) rather than publications in the literature.  So no, there's no other comparable source that I am aware of.
 * As for getting this done in two weeks - highly doubtful. I'm not home right now, and once I get home I'll have an insane amount of work to do (entirely restructuring a course) in the week before classes start.
 * I agree that the lead could use work. Again, I'm a little hampered by the fact that I don't have access to either to a decent library right now.  Guettarda (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's a chance that the list can be improved within a reasonable amount of time, the directors can wait. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We'd need to seem some concrete improvements within the next two weeks, but yes, as Minnesota Vikings and Macs go to show, some effort goes a long way in keeping the directors happy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Guettarda is making good progress. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is any more progress being made?  iMatthew  talk  at 12:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's left to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that - the week before classes start is crazy (a lot busier than I had anticipated, actually), and the first week of classes was worse (had to ban myself from Wikipedia). With regards to what needs to be done; Will get back to it as soon as I can (next day or two). Hope that's timely enough progress. Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The section headers shouldn't be links, per the MOS (or at least that was the case the last time I looked). But subfamilies of snakes are a tad too obscure to mention without links, so each would need a few words of explanatory text beneath the header (like they do in the "list of birds" FLs).  Have to find a good source for that - poked around our library, but couldn't find a good single source that dealt with snake families.
 * The lead is still weak, and makes a couple statements that aren't explicitly linked to a source, and which cannot simply be deduced from sourced info in the article. So that still needs work.
 * There's no hurry. Take your time; you're doing a great job. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if you want a template as to how to format the article, check out List of lemur species. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, just a (probably unnecessary) note to say that as long as the list is being continually improved, this nomination will remain open (and open-minded). Keep up the good work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - well done to everyone concerned in resolving issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice: If the above comments are not resolved by this Tuesday, I'll be delisting this.  iMatthew  talk  at 13:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Definitely meets the criteria. If the list could be improved in any way, I would suggest making the individual tables sortable, and adding to the lead. Also, if there is information about the conservation status of the snakes, that would be useful. However, none of these is a dealbreaker; kudos to Guettarda for the referencing. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.