Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/County flowers of the United Kingdom
Nominating this as I think that although it probably isn't of FL quality yet, it has the potential to be, and some feedback would be useful. SP-KP 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - pretty good. The lead needs expanding into a decent paragraph: perhaps you could crib some from county flowers? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks - I'll do what you suggest. SP-KP 18:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - there seem to be photos missing from list entries, despite the corresponding articles having perfectly good images. Any reasons? Laïka 17:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I noticed that as well. Also one which is missing a picture does not correspond to the genus in the target article which also does not mention the species: Chiltern Gentian, Gentianella germanica. Bigger question: Since most of the linked scientific names go to the same article as the common names, shouldn't we just leave the scientific names unlinked. Rmhermen 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Probably they weren't there when I originally created the list - if you've found some, please add them in and remove them from the "To Do" list on the talk page, or let me know which ones they are & I can do it. I'll check out the Chiltern Gentian issue. Linking both the common & scientific names was done as that seems to be the convention used in other biological lists. I've no firm preference on it either way though. SP-KP 18:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- If the scientific name is correct, Chiltern Gentian should link to genus Gentianella, not Gentiana. Rmhermen 19:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Probably they weren't there when I originally created the list - if you've found some, please add them in and remove them from the "To Do" list on the talk page, or let me know which ones they are & I can do it. I'll check out the Chiltern Gentian issue. Linking both the common & scientific names was done as that seems to be the convention used in other biological lists. I've no firm preference on it either way though. SP-KP 18:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I noticed that as well. Also one which is missing a picture does not correspond to the genus in the target article which also does not mention the species: Chiltern Gentian, Gentianella germanica. Bigger question: Since most of the linked scientific names go to the same article as the common names, shouldn't we just leave the scientific names unlinked. Rmhermen 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment' - shouldn't it be "List of county flowers of the United Kingdom"? BTW, I don't think it can pass until it states "Source to be determined for Northern Ireland" on the bottom... --Dijxtra 11:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. I feel it has great potential, however it lacks sources and context. The fact that there is minimal text explaining what the list is about makes me have to vote oppose - the lack of sources would have me at neutral. However, with a little bit of work, this could become a FL. Good luck, Daniel.Bryant 03:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Daniel. When you say above that the list lacks sources - i.e. there are no sources - I'm confused, as there is a sources section at the end of the list, I'm sure you would have spotted that, so I guess you mean something else. Want to have another try at explaining what you mean? SP-KP 18:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, I was a little bit vague. The sources are nearly perfect, however as is noted in the #Sources section, some are missing. Normally, this could be forgiven, but Featured Content is meant to be Wikipedia's best (and therefore most well-sourced) content, and hence it really needs the source for Nth Ireland. Also, the lead needs to be expanded (which was the "context" I was alluding to). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Daniel. When you say above that the list lacks sources - i.e. there are no sources - I'm confused, as there is a sources section at the end of the list, I'm sure you would have spotted that, so I guess you mean something else. Want to have another try at explaining what you mean? SP-KP 18:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If you follow ALoan and Rmhermen's suggestions you may be on to a winner. You don't need to change the article name, there are other featured lists without "list" in the title. For the NI "county status", where did you get the "Native" info? If you can't reliably source it then just replace with "N/A" and drop the comment in your "Sources" (for now). Rename "Sources" as "References". Use the cite web template for the Plantlife ref. Add an explanation of "Native", "Casual" and "Archaeophyte" in your intro. I'd consider dropping the trivia note about Alexanders and Poppy for Norfolk. If you get your finger out, you might be able to get featured this time round. Colin°Talk 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the list really should make it clear if these are county flowers in any offical capacity - most places make laws and so on for official emblems; from the opening description, brief as it is, it sounds as if these are flowers assigned to counties by some conservation organisation and do not have any "offical" status as county flowers. Changing the name of the article to Plantlife's county flowers of the United Kingdom, would be more accurate.--Peta 03:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)