Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of dragonfly species recorded in Britain

List of dragonfly species recorded in Britain[edit]

A previous FL candidate, which failed principally due to the low number of entries for which an article existed. The situation is much better now, and this list recently passed GA, so I'm going to give it another shot. SP-KP 23:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The tables need column headings, despite the explanation prior to the list. People want to look at a table, not read a paragraph to figure out what the table is referring to. Pepsidrinka 00:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: notes and inline references should be cited using [Cite.php], let's utilize the fact that WP has interactive capabilities and notes can be clickable. Renata 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I converted the notes and added headers at the top of the table. Should they be repeated in each section of the table or is once enough? Rmhermen 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied your headings to the remaining tables, as I think this helps the reader, without being too distracting. Thanks for doing the notes. Do we need to do the same with the inline references? SP-KP 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can do that while keeping the Notes and References sections separate. Perhaps we could use the old footnote templates for those? Rmhermen 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I agree that something needs to be done to convert those parenthetical citations into footnotes, but without interfering with the table footnotes. For lack of another idea, Rmhermen's idea seems like the best one (i.e., use the old citation system for the references). Pepsidrinka 00:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Point me at an example and I'll do the rest. SP-KP 11:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of circulating currencies and Nuclear power by country, both use notes and refs. Jo e I 08:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm starting to work my way through these. Bear with me while I sort them all out. Any other comments anyone? SP-KP 17:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - Done them all, I think. Someone please check through for errors. SP-KP 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think it is all set now. Rmhermen 00:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to Comment - could you set a bold article title in the first paragragh? Jo e I 07:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done SP-KP 08:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Support Thnx :) Jo e I 08:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could we get a picture of a representative specimen for each suborder? Where's the TOC? -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 12:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: pics - yes, we could, I'll do that now. The TOC is suppressed by use of the NOTOC tag, but doesn't have to be - I'm happy to go with whatever consensus is. SP-KP 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list is long enough to warrant a TOC.

Thanks, what do others think? SP-KP 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could also help to separate the lead from the actual list

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this - can you explain? SP-KP 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that if you have the TOC you could still place some images to the right of it if you wanted to. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 11:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and even leave more room for pictures. In any case it's up to you to decide where to put it. Thanks for the pics, btw. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 17:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~pending the addition of some sort of table of contents and a resizing of the pictures. The image at the top is fine, but the others are too intrusive. Pepsidrinka 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)~~ Fully support now. Pepsidrinka 00:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - good work on making the notes. However now it is double-referenced. For example, (Forrest 2005 ^[12]). If I click on that 12, it takes me to the bottom with full book title, etc (which is great) but then I don't need that Forrest 2005. It's simply redundant. Also, a suggestion, "notes" column is not really needed. You can simply add that [A] or [B] next to the specie name. Then you'll have more space for pictures other people are requesting. Renata 01:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for these comments. Good point about the Notes column - I agree, it is superfluous, I'll get rid of it and do as you suggest when I make my next edit to the article. The retention of the Harvard reference format in the main text was deliberate, in that to people familiar with the subject matter of the text, some of these references will be "household names" - if I read "Merritt, Moore & Eversham 2006", for instance, I know exactly which work it refers to. If I took that out, I'd have to do two extra clicks, to get to this in the list, and back to the text, which seems unnecessary. Does that reasoning make sense? What do you think about it? Do you have a view on whether we should have a TOC? So far two editors think we need one, and two don't, though don't feel strongly about it. I'm happy to go with whatever consensus emerges. SP-KP

There are two basic principles how to cite sources. One is footnotes (put a little asterics or letter indicating that the reader should find a note about it) and inline (e.g. (Forest 2005)). All that's good. But I never ever saw a document that would use both as this article does. WP prefers footnotes because they are clickable... So I feel quite strongly about it. I also think there should be a TOC, but I don't really care. Good luck. Renata 11:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renata, thanks. What do others feel about Renata's concern - again, I'm happy to go with the consensus. SP-KP 16:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a good example of how hyperlinked text improves on traditional methods. I don't see a problem with it. Rmhermen 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes column removed now - so just the issue of referencing format left to resolve? Anyone else got any views? SP-KP 10:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double referencing here does seem a bit redundand although it tends to be common in the humanities (my point being that this is not without precedent). Do you know whether double referencing is a common practice in Biology as well? -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. SP-KP 17:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: extending nomination so that the issues with reference format can be addressed. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 13:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]