Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of vespertilionines/archive1

List of vespertilionines

Featured list candidates/List of vespertilionines/archive1

Nominator(s): Pres N 20:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bats list #5 and mammal list #46: Vespertilioninae. This list wore me out: I try to make it one list per family, but the parent family (Vespertilionidae) had so many bats that the page stopped rendering partway through. Even cutting it down to this subfamily is still pushing it, as with 278 species it's almost as big as the entire order of Carnivora, which was covered by the first ten lists in this series, and nearly 5% of all mammal species in one go. It's all done now, though, so here we are: nearly 300 tiny, tiny little bats. Really, what got me through it was the picture for the first bat: he's been captured by a giant, and he's so very mad about it. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 20:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently on pretty slow wifi, so what I got when the page started loading was the alt text of the lede image, which is incredible. And the pallid bat image is, indeed, very cute. So smol, so angry. Anyway, I'll try to give a prose review of the top parts.

A few extinct prehistoric molossid species have been discovered, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed. Molossids? Huh?
Considering your reported problem of page length, this rendered decently quickly for me on slow wifi. Good job!

Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: Whoops, fixed! --Pres N 02:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think the lead image could be made larger
"Main article: Murininae" is randomly floating between two tables and doesn't look like it's meant to be there.......unless I am wrong......?
That's it - amazing work. Your dedication to long and heavy-duty lists is to be admired! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Expanded and fixed, thanks! --Pres N 13:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Generalissima

Holy moly, that's a lot of bats!

Mainly cited to the IUCN red list, which seems like quite the reputable source (and match your previous FLs in this field). I'm going to have to assume good faith on All the Mammals, but I checked a dozen of the IUCN cites and they all checked out, as did the one Nowak cite and Ibanez et al. Sources are consistently formatted, and every entry has its own cite. I would personally put Ibanez et al. in the bibliography itself rather than in the citations, but its your list and consistency is what matters here. The uncited portions in the lede, conventions, and classification are supported by the sources in the tables themselves, so all is shipshape here.

Support, everything seems fine by me. :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]