Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of phalangeriformes/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) 00:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of phalangeriformes

Featured list candidates/List of phalangeriformes/archive1

Nominator(s): Pres N 21:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number 26 in our series of animal FLCs, we have the second list in the Diprotodontia subset of Australian marsupials: the list for the suborder Phalangeriformes. The last one, for Macropodiformes, has the kangaroos, and this one contains the possums, gliders, and cuscus. So, to Americans, it's 'possums, flying squirrels, and giant possums, except Australian and with a pouch. This half of the order is doing better than the 'roos, with no extinct species, but still has 12 of the 64 species either endangered or critically endangered. The science is up to date and the formatting reflects prior FLCs, so hopefully it should be all good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 21:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Phalangeriformes is an suborder" - stray N in there :-)
Think that's it, actually! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks! --Pres N 13:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
"All extinct genera, species, or subspecies": Doesn't this imply that you've got at least one extinct taxon in this list? I don't see one.

Ah, yes, left the boilerplate text in. Now removed. --Pres N 02:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the license for File:Western ringtail possum at Locke Nature Reserve.jpg.

Took me a bit; according to [2], for anything published in that journal, "The article and published supplementary material are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0)". --Pres N 02:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the FLC criteria:
1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I sampled the links in the tables.
2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
3b. The list 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 (except as noted above).
6. It is stable.
Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 02:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AK

I've done a minor c/e to fix up some issues, mainly ones similar to the ones I pointed out on the last list. Feel free to revert any you might disagree with.
I can't see any content or ref issues, so good enough for a support from me. AryKun (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – As with the other similar list I looked at very recently, the sources are reliable and well-formatted throughout, and the link-checker tool shows no concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 4 May 2023 (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) 21:12, 7 May 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.