Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of diprotodonts/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of diprotodonts

[edit]

List of diprotodonts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PresN 00:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At number 27 in our series of animal FLCs, we now cap off the trilogy of Australian marsupials with a list for the whole order Diprotodontia. Recently closed were FLCs for two of the suborders in Diprotodontia, the list of macropodiformes (kangaroos) and list of phalangeriformes (cuscus, etc.), and this list capstones them as well as the too-short-for-a-species-list suborder Vombatiformes, containing the koala and wombats. It's been over a year since the last one of these, but these capstone lists go up a level from the species lists to be a list of genera instead, for orders that are too large to be a single list of species. This one follows the pattern of the last three genera lists (carnivorans, artiodactyls, and lagomorphs), and lists 39 genera representing 140 extant species; if you saw the last two FLCs, these animals should look pretty familiar. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SilverTiger

  • "They are found in Australia, New Guinea, and Indonesia in forests, shrublands, grasslands, and savannas, though some species can also be found in deserts and rocky areas." - this sentence feels a little clunky. A comma after Indonesia might help, and are the species found in forests really also found in deserts? I'd suggest rephrasing that to "though some species are found in deserts and rocky areas".
  • Done.
  • "and includes cuscus and brushtail, ringtail, and gliding possums." Suggest rephrasing to "and includes cuscus and the brushtail, ringtail, and gliding possums." to better indicate that it is brushtail possums, ringtail possums, and gliding possums.
  • Done.
  • "two families: Phascolarctidae, or the koala, and Vombatidae, or the wombats." Suggest rephrasing to "two families: Phascolarctidae, the koala, and Vombatidae, the wombats."
  • Done.
  • "The organization of the order is not fixed, with many recent proposals made based on molecular phylogenetic analysis; additionally, the present trio of suborders by splitting the former suborder Phalangerida into Macropodiformes and Phalangeriformes based on research beginning in 1997, with further reorganizations proposed." - I'm not quite sure what this is saying (organization of the order? As in the internal organization of the suborders or families?) and the second half makes even less sense IMO.
  • Whoops, that one got away from me. Fixed.
  • "Dozens of extinct prehistoric Diprotodont species..." - perhaps put a comma after extinct?
  • Done.
  • Conventions section is good. Classification paragraph is good.
  • But something seems off about the cladogram, like it is squishing into the text instead of being aligned to right? Could the cladogram be moved over to the right a little, and the max width of the text-list increased a bit?
  • These cladograms are a continual headache, as the wider ones have problems on narrower screens with overlapping the text. I've switched up how I'm doing it so now it's not below the regular text but just hangs out like an image; does that look better?
  • Right under the subheading "Hypsiprymnodontidae", the table says "not assigned to a named subfamily", but a subfamily is given on the genus article.
  • Yeah, it's annoying, but the standard on Wikipedia as per WP:MAMMAL is to use the classification of species of Mammal Species of the World 3rd ed. (2005), and then any adjustments since that are supported by both the American Society of Mammologists and the IUCN. And... MSW3 and ASM both don't give any subfamilies for Hypsiprymnodon. So, even though the species/genus/family articles disagree, this list doesn't list a subfamily.
  • On my first go-through I don't see any other obvious mistakes, but there is a sad dearth of range maps, especially for the macropodines and Lasiorhinus (which I consider especially sad because there is no suborder list to see species range maps at).
  • Yeah, some orders have decent per-genus maps, but this one really doesn't. I don't make the maps, as I haven't sorted out how to take IUCN shapefiles and turn them into maps, so we're a bit empty here.
Comments

Comments from HAL

[edit]
  • Very minor, but you used the singular and then the plural for "the koala, and Vombatidae, the wombats". If it flows better as is, disregard as well of course.
  • It's on purpose, there's only one koala species, but two wombat species.
  • That checks out.
  • Should "southern Australia" be capitalized, as it is in its subarticle? The same goes for similar cases, eg "western Australia".
  • I didn't, because I'm not identifying them as being in a specific, named region, but just in e.g. the "the southern part of Australia". For pretty much all species in these lists the area they are found in is too complex to accurately describe with words, so for the caption I just give a general area and not nail down specific named regions. For the Australian lists, since the continent is mostly contiguous with the country, you end up with some of these collisions, but it's the same thing I do with e.g. "western South America" in other lists rather than naming parts of countries.

That's all I could find. They're interesting little fellows. And the article is well polished. ~ HAL333 17:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Thanks for reviewing; I responded inline, though I didn't make any changes. --PresN 13:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker shows no issues. To offer one nit-picky comment, you might want to consider alphabetizing the list of books, as that's a fairly common practice, but no major concerns here. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, looks like a couple of books were accidentally sorted by the editor last name, not the author. --PresN 21:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review – The sampling of images that I checked out all had appropriate free licenses, a good caption (for the lead photo collage), and alt text. Everything looks good in this department. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_diprotodonts/archive1&oldid=1160819668"