Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hypericum species/archive2
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 10:50:32 11 May 2019 (UTC) [1].
List of Hypericum species
List of Hypericum species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list candidates/List of Hypericum species/archive1
- Featured list candidates/List of Hypericum species/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): ]
This list has been my pet project for right around two years now, and I have been working on it sporadically. It is an ambitious project to have a comprehensive, helpful, organized, and complete list of a genus 500 species large, of which no other attempt has been made to my knowledge. The genus ]
- Comments from Lirim.Z
- There are so many description sections empty.--Talk 20:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikilink section (biology) at the top, I was surprised I'd never heard of this term.
- I'd put the description paragraph before the distribution
- Link other technical terms like glabrous, decussate, and nothospecies (which should be defined since it's in section headers)
- When the distribution is an image, it needs alt text.
- All of the "Description" subheadings are unnecessary. It's obvious what you're talking about and it doesn't need to be separated from the sentence giving the # of species
- Inconsistency whether the Synonyms column is empty or says "None"
- The type species are bolded and centered – for accessibility an asterisk or similar is better, leave the formatting the same (the color is enough of a visual cue).
- Concinna and several others are missing a description.
- Sect. Coridium is missing a summary and description
- The only footnote is that H. atomarium is naturalized to Portugal. That could just be in parentheses within the table cell instead.
Reywas92Talk 20:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from BeatlesLedTV
- The title at the top should read
List of Hypericum speciesperMOS:ITALICTITLE - All tables need scope rows and scope cols per MOS:ACCESS
- All dashes should be en dashes (–) per MOS:DASH
- Image cols should be centered
- On top of this, many don't actually have images, so they should have centered en dashes
- All integers zero through nine should be spelled out per MOS:NUMS
- I agree with Lirim all these description sections shouldn't be empty
- Arthrophyllum Jaub. & Spach contains five species – why is it written like this in many instances?
- Agree with Lirim ALL images need alt text
- Many links are green, blue, and brown. Also many are just urls
For me there's too many problems right now. I'm sorry but I have to oppose – talk) 00:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This list is nowhere near a featured list. Interesting topic, but the list is unfinished.–Talk 02:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - multiple empty "description" sections suggest that the article simply isn't finished -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I like lists like these but the structure is overwhelming.
- I think the species could be one (non-collapsed) table. Just need a column for the Sect/subsect.
- There is no need for a whole heading and 2 subheadings dedicated to each Sect. There should be a single heading for the details of each Sect, each of which can have a short paragraph within this single heading. This will significantly reduce the page length and the table of contents would be less ridiculous without the hundred subheadings.
- I would break off all notospecies into a new page called List of Hypericum nothospecies which would make the single table suggested for this page much more manageable.
I would be willing to help with this new formatting if you are interested in collaborating. Mattximus (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I like the idea of breaking off the notospecies and I've started removing the extraneous headings. I think that would at least be a good start, but one table for 500 species? I just think it may be too much... I'd never turn down an offer to help though, and I am committed to getting this list to FL-status just as soon as I can. Thanks to all for all the input and constructive criticism, it'll be put to good use. Thanks again, ]
Fritzmann2002 it's been a month since anything has happened here for this nomination, and with the opposition above, coupled with no apparent decision to action any of the comments, do you wish to withdraw this? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would be fine. In a few weeks I will have a lot more time to dedicate to meeting these criteria and implementing the above suggestions. Once I've done all of those things mentioned and really completed the article I will re-up the nomination, and it should hopefully be a sufficient article then since I'll have addressed all the criticisms by that point. Thank you to all for your suggestions, I'll put them into action as soon as I can. ]
- Closing note: This WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the botgoes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.