Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of macroscelids/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of macroscelids

Featured list candidates/List of macroscelids/archive1

Nominator(s): Pres N 21:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is number 22 in our ongoing journey of animal list FLCs (3 lists for Lagomorpha, 10 for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, and 1 each for Perissodactyla, Cingulata, Didelphimorphia, and Scandentia), with the last one in a subseries of single-list orders. In this one we find the 20 species of Macroscelidea, or elephant shrews, which despite the name aren't closely related to shrews or any rodent; the elephant part just comes from the nose looking kind of like a trunk, but it turns out they're actually in the same Afrotheria clade of six orders with elephants. These little mammals are native to a variety of habitats in Africa, generally the southern half, and all look fairly similar, though do note the black and rufous elephant shrew, which eschews the dusty camouflage of most of them for a striking black and red. We're missing a few photos of these guys due to their small and reclusive nature, but the science is up to date and the formatting reflects prior FLCs. This will be last one of these lists for a while—I took a break after this one to change genres. Thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 21:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"They are all around a similar size, ranging from the Etendeka round-eared sengi, at 8 cm (3 in) plus a 8 cm (3 in) tail, to the grey-faced sengi, at 32 cm (13 in) plus a 26 cm (10 in) tail" - I think I mentioned this in a previous FLC, but is there a way to reword this? I appreciate that all these creatures are kinda of a similar size when compared to the entirety of the animal kingdom (i.e. they are small), but is it really accurate to say that they are of a similar size and then list two examples where one has a body literally four times the size of the other? Does that make sense?
Wikilink biome as a slightly obscure word?
Is it worth wikilinking savanna on the first usage? It may not be a term that all readers know.....
Think that's all I got - great work as ever -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: All done, thanks! --Pres N 02:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
An excellent list.
"Almost no macroscelid species have a population estimate, though the golden-rumped elephant shrew is considered endangered with a population of around 13,000.": I prefer something like: "The only macroscelid species with an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) population estimate is the golden-rumped elephant shrew, listed as endangered with a population of around 13,000." (And then of course you can use just "IUCN" in the Conventions section ... see my next bullet point.)
"Conservation status codes listed follow the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. ... Ranges are based on the IUCN Red List for that species unless otherwise noted.": I prefer: "Unless otherwise noted, ranges and conservation status codes listed follow the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species." I have no preference on whether you keep the "otherwise noted" or where it should go.
Alt text seems to be missing for the dusky-footed and Karoo rock elephant shrews.
Checking the FLC criteria:
1. The prose is fine. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
4. It is navigable.
5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
6. It is stable.
Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Text points done; not sure what you mean about the alt text as neither of those two has a species image (and all the ranges have visible text instead). --Pres N 18:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops on the alt text. I get that "unless otherwise noted" complicates the question regarding the two "Red List" sentences, and I don't have any strong preference. Everything else looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

Prose

No concerns with the lede.
Why isn't there a citation for the classification section?

Added

I'm not sure if "Main article: Macroscelididae", as it this is the first wikilink in the first word of the article in the lede.

Yeah, since there's only one family it looks weird, removed

Images

"Elephantulus fuscus Peters 1852.jpg", "Elephantulus brachyrhynchus Smith 1839.jpg", "Elephantulus rupestris Smith 1839.tif", "Rhynchocyon chrysopygus-J Smit 2.jpg" all need a US public domain tag

Added

"Elephantulus fuscus Peters 1852.jpg" I could not find the image in the book that is listed as its source. Where did this image come from?

The image as stated comes from one of the plates that came with the book (plate 19, in this case), rather than being printed in the book. They did that back in the 1850s. I do not know why the plates aren't included in the scan at the Munchener DigitalisierungsZentrum Digitale Bibliothek linked; presumably they're in a different record. The book scan listed does refer to plate 19 for this species, however.

After searching a couple of different places, I finally found the image on Google books, and replaced the source link because the image was not in the original link. The Google books image is in colour, but I'm fine with keeping this black-and-white image if desired. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Sources are high quality.
No formatting concerns.

Please ping me when the concerns above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: responded inline, thanks! --Pres N 15:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Added comment above about E. fuscus image. All other concerns were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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