Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of birds of Egypt/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 PresN 16:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of birds of Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Egypt, WikiProject Africa
Following on from the recent removal of a few similar lists, these are a few more that I think fall well below our current FL standards. Each starts "This is a list of..." contrary to our guidelines, and feature very few inline citations.
This list has an extremely short lead, which can not possibly summarise the content of the article, and all four inline citations provided are in that lead. The bulk of the article is presumably all covered by "General" references. Harrias talk 14:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I know nothing about FL process, honestly. Two questions: 1) Wouldn't it be way more efficient to just fix the lead wording than to launch a removal process? It probably took more time to describe the problem in the lead than to reword it. What is the wording problem? (Well, that's question 1A). 2) How is a lead supposed to summarize a list, more than introducing it? Is there a checklist of some sort? Understand the citation problem of course. What's the timeframe? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harrias: Hello? Anyone? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, didn't notice the reply here. In response to your questions:
- Maybe it would, but to be honest I'm not particularly bothered about the lists, and that issue is very much the tip of the iceberg. I could fix that, but the list would still be far from featured quality.
- Although still not an ideal article, List of birds of Thailand gives an idea of how the lead can provide more useful information, and something of a summary of the content, rather than simply a dry, rather meaningless introduction which is more akin to a key. Harrias talk 13:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've notified WT:BIRDS about what's expected from the lead. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harrias: To centralize discussion, I'm excerpting something you'd written on another of these (and which is consistent with what you wrote on several more):
The [bulk] of the article, and the lead, is presumably sourced to the three general references provided, though it is unclear, falling well below our standards for verifiability. Harrias talk 14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
'- Since almost all of the entries came from one of the sources, an alphabetical work on birds, and the rest came from another one of same, what could possibly be the use in adding a large number of redundant citations? Where the taxonomy article was used to source a few reclassified scientific names, I could see the point in including inline citations in those cases. But for the other two sources, it would seem more practical, no less verifiable, less reader-annoying, and much less wasted productivity to just state at the topic that the list is based on the catalogued species listing in ref 1 and ref 2. Surely the featured list process accounts for such things? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your argument, and it is a reasonably fair one. My issue at the moment is that it simply isn't immediately apparent what comes from where; you might know, but the article gives little indication of it. Look at the bottom part of WP:MINREF for an idea of what I mean. Harrias talk 15:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Since almost all of the entries came from one of the sources, an alphabetical work on birds, and the rest came from another one of same, what could possibly be the use in adding a large number of redundant citations? Where the taxonomy article was used to source a few reclassified scientific names, I could see the point in including inline citations in those cases. But for the other two sources, it would seem more practical, no less verifiable, less reader-annoying, and much less wasted productivity to just state at the topic that the list is based on the catalogued species listing in ref 1 and ref 2. Surely the featured list process accounts for such things? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's been 2.5 months, and none of the 4 bird FLRCs have gotten any delist votes, and most have had very little discussion at all. While there may be issues with the lists, the nominations can't keep hanging around here forever, so I'm going to go ahead and close all 4 as keep. --PresN 16:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.