Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basal superasterid families/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, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of basal superasterid families

List of basal superasterid families (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of basal superasterid families/archive1

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basic licensing information for the images is on the list talk page. I've got a new template in the "See also" section (but I'm trying to get it compact enough for use as a

PresN and I worked up a sidebar with links to the other lists. I think it will help give a sense of how the orders fit together, too. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

Non-expert review on a topic not in my usual area. Feel free to argue with anything.

• Perhaps it is worth linking woody to woody plant, to benefit unfamiliar readers.
• This is optional, but since the Glossary is likely considered the body of the article and is partly written in prose, perhaps superasterids and the three plant orders would be worth linking again.
• That's all from me. Nothing to quibble about, overall an excellent, well-structured and very informative work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks kindly. Both done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- if you have spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

• Support - After reading the list twice, I found nothing to quibble about. It is well-written and the images included demonstrate it well. I have an FAC currently which I would appreciate any comments on if you're interested. Regards.--NØ 14:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, that support helps a lot, and I'll be happy to review the Meghan Trainor song. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Wait, for some reason I saw "FAC" and was thinking "FLC". I haven't reviewed at FAC for a long time; I've been sick off and on for a while and I haven't kept up with standards there. But I'll go through now and do some copyediting that I think will help the article pass at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Source review: Version reviewed, spot-checks not done.

• "Kubitzki, K.; " Is the publisher the Springer Publishing Company? If so, I recommend using their full name.
  • No, this is the German publisher. I see the name that we're using for them on Wikipedia these days is "Springer Science+Business Media", so I went with that. Added in this edit. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2016)" does not have a retrieval date, while "Bremer, Kåre; Friis," does. Since these are both academic journal articles, either both should have this or neither.
  • Removed in this edit.
• "Coombes, Allen (2012)." Google Books says that the author is Allen J. Coombes; should the initial be included?
  • Done.

Image review:

• "Achatocarpus.PNG": needs a USPD banner
  • Replaced the image in this edit.
• No other concerns with licencing, px, or alt text.

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720. Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support my comments were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]