Wikipedia:Peer review/List of European dinosaurs/archive1

List of European dinosaurs

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to work towards featured list status.

Thanks, —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting list, here are some suggestions for improvement, but I am not sure it could qualify for FL under the new rules.

Article needs more references, for example there are only three refs in the whole thing right now. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. A list article can have general references, but I do not see that here.
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - List of dinosaurs is a FL and may be a useful model list.
I also am concerned that this may be ineligible for FL status under Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, especially 3b In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. This seems to largely recreate material from the FL List of dinosaurs.
The use of color in the list does not seem to meet WP:ACCESS
I would add much more detail to the Notes section. I would also define nomen dubium etc (not just link them)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ruhrfisch.

On reading your remarks, I suspect the FL criteria won't tolerate this; which is a pity. (We couldn't improve List of dinosaurs into a sortable list with a timeline because it's already more than twice the recommended length, so I do feel smaller sub-lists that provide more detail are justified.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can always discuss this at the talk page for FLC, it may be that I am reading the criteria wrong (or that the consensus would be this is OK). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]