Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ammonites/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 not promoted 06:10, 5 January 2008.

---

List of ammonites

I am nominating the List of ammonites because I feel that it has now reached the point where it fulfills, or nearly fulfills the featured list criteria.

• Useful- If you're interested in ammonites a directory to articles on almost every known genus would be a godsend.
• Comprehensive- Lists over 2,350 genera. More than Sepkoski's database, way more than Mikko's Phylogeny Archive. This list is almost certainly the best one available online, maybe even in the entire world.
• Factually accurate- All genera are backed with sources, and besides, even invalid genera are included in this list (like in the list of dinosaurs).
• Stable- The list already includes thousands of genera. More will almost certainly be added, but probably not very often.
• Uncontroversial- They're all backed by sources, nothing to really debate over.
• Well constructed- Lots of pretty pictures, divided into columns to minimize page length, many mini-tocs for easy navigation, extra subheadings to make finding specific genera easier.

The only change I can think of that it might need, is that maybe the mini-TOCs would looke better centered on the page. Any ideas? Abyssal leviathin (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral First and foremost, I just have to say amazing work, this list is pretty amazing in its comprehensiveness and it looks great. The reason why I cannot support though is that there are two main problems with the list. First I will start with the small problem:

• The "See also" section is there to point readers to other existing articles related to this topic. In this See also section there are two redlinks, they should just be removed because they serve no purpose.

Now the two main problems:

• WP:WIAFL Criterion #1-(a)-1 says that a WP:FL should "bring together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria" (emphasis added). Looking over this list, it would seem that a solid 75-90% of the genres listed do not have articles. Now usually redlinks in a list are allowed, insomuch that the list has a majority of created articles over redlink ones. Basically you would probably need to fill a solid 1600-1900 of these redlinks with articles to get this list featured and it would be best to complete them all, due to the fact that more than likely one genre isnt more notable than another. (This could be the work for a bot, I have heard of article creation bots used to create pages about different species or genre names.)
• Not a glaring weakness, but something that probably should be worked out is shorting the article. A good format would be like the one used at List of gay, lesbian, or bisexual people where you have a main article and then multiple others that is the list broken down by letter (to be clear, if this was the only problem, I would support, but I thought I would bring it up because it does concern me a little).

Due to the great work here I cannot oppose, but due to the fact that the list fails one of the main criterion, I just cannot support at this time. As a side note, I think the TOC's look fine. Either the way they are or centered would be fine, whatever you like the best.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs}

Also, the "Reliability of this List" section seems to talk to the reader instead of providing info to the reader, most blatantly in the last sentence, which encourages the reader to add to the list. There shouldnt be notes like this is an article.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. This list has only recently (25 Dec) been submitted for peer review. That process takes a while and should be really be allowed to complete before nominating for Featured status. The list has multiple problems:
  • The lead and introductory sections require copyediting. Examples: "is an attempt to create"; "A name which describes"; "that never made it to"; "also may not have" (have they or haven't they); the final sentence of "Reliability of this List".
  • Noting the exact size of the list is unwise. It may be worth mentioning "over two thousand" somewhere but don't refer to the list; refer to the subject.
  • The "Naming conventions and terminology" section contains much that doesn't belong here. Use the lead to explain those Latin words and then briefly indicate how those name types are identified within the list body.
  • The "Reliability of this List" section isn't appropriate (see Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid). The "incomplete list" template is allowed (though usually appears at the top) but I'm not sure it is needed here. Although new ammonites may be discovered, the set isn't very dynamic.
  • The linked-to articles are nearly all extreme stubs of the form "is an extinct genus of cephalopod belonging to the Ammonite subclass." I caution against creating more of these (especially via a bot) without taking advice from some wikiprojects.
  • As noted above, the list is overwhelmingly red. A start appears to have been made, but it has a lifetime to go.
  • One major problem you face is that mechanically creating red-links often mean they end up pointing at the wrong thing. Some examples: Hoffmannia, Owenites, Protoceras, Parkinsonia, Rehmannia. More will follow as the red turns blue. Keeping check on those will be a maintenance nightmare.
  • I'm not sure about the external link to "Sepkoski's Online Genus Database". What is the copyright status of this (i.e., is it legal)? It looks very much like a university student's personal project and might not be an appropriate link.
  • "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive" should not be linked. It is a self-published, non-reviewed site. The author himself discourages its use as a scientific resource.

I suggest you explicitly request feedback from any relevant wikiprojects to the peer review. Colin°^Talk 15:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. As in List of dinosaurs, it would be useful to include which genera names are Nomen nudum, Nomen oblitum... CG (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.