I am nominating this for featured list because it presents an interesting topic, is well sourced, stable, and maintains a high standard of prose. There may be a question as to its comprehensiveness, as it is not an exhaustive list. However, I believe that it succeeds in presenting a substantial list of the most common misconceptions, and in that aspect it is comprehensive. It has many media files, and overall is very informative and pleasant to read. InverseHypercube (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you consult with regular editors of the list before nomination? According to , you have only made 9 edits to this page.—Chris!c/t 23:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, some editors suggested I nominate it for FL after I incorrectly nominated it as a good article. For what it's worth, I did add an item (the one about entropy) to the list, and I have participated in several discussions on the talk page. InverseHypercube (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Just checking. If they know about this, then it is fine.—Chris!c/t 00:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It was a few months ago. Anyways, I am a frequent reader of this list and have had it in my watchlist (I presume the "discussing with editors" thing is about confirming stability of the article). It remains quite stable from what I can see. InverseHypercube 00:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
For I feel that this is a very interesting list, it meets the criteria, and it should be easier for all to read. Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
There are three dead external links.
Some references need access dates (11, 15,...) and/or publisher information (61, 62, 63,..., 229). Please check all references.
Not sure whether this list belongs in category "Science activism".
The lead should be expanded and could then get its own image.
"misconception and its reference(s) must be present in the topic article" Why do you require the reference to be present in another article? How does it influence this list and what happens if an editor removes the reference in that article?
How do you define "modern rather than ancient or obsolete."?
Possibly change "Human body and health" to "Medicine" which is more in line with the other sciences (physics, chemistry,...).
References need cleanup (expanding on what bamse said above about missing information):
inconsistent date formatting (ref #1 has "Retrieved 2010-12-02", #3 has "Retrieved 18 March 2011", #5 has "Retrieved July 31, 2010", and so on)
several web references are nothing but a title and a URL: 64, 68, 69, 73, 74, 95, 109, 110, 122
some web references list the domain as the title when an actual title exists: 111 ("disabled-world.com"), 197 ("Google Books"), 221 ("worldwidewords.org"), 229 ("CSMonitor.org")
unformatted references to Mythbusters episodes (italics, quotation marks, other information): 51, 57, 67
apparent references to Wikipedia: 31 (de.Wikipedia), 203 ("Erratum")
Snopes is referenced several ways: as a work (italics), as a publisher, or neither; as Snopes.com or as Snopes; with authors or without
26 ("Poland 1939"), unusual formatting (quotation format, author's name)
135, 136; should "Nature" and "National Geographic" be titles rather than publishers?
I didn't closely examine the content of the references but a few jumped out at me:
35 ("Sloane") seems to be citing an Australian court case to make a claim about US law
43 ("US Patent 7112771"), I would regard a patent's claims as a primary source
Some of the websites don't seem like WP:RS, such as 109.
Although I addressed a few unlisted reference issues in recent edits, many more remain. —Mrwojo (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment - This article seems to follow two styles when discussing misconceptions:
Mention the misconception followed by the actual facts. (eg: It is a common myth that an earthworm becomes two worms when cut in half.....)
Not mention the misconception directly at all, and provide the actual facts which imply at what the misconception is. (eg: Sharks can actually suffer from cancer. The myth that sharks do not get cancer was spread....)
This inconsistency is seen throughout the article, but the latter seems to be the more prevalent method. I personally prefer the first because it doesn't leave any room for doubt about what the misconception is, but either way make the article uniform. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Thank you for the suggestions. I am working on improving it. InverseHypercube 06:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
needs more work I was really skeptical before opening it, but it did not look that bad after. Still the intro at least needs to be improved, and "common" needs to be defined clearly - i.e. what makes the list not wp:OR. Nergaal (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Leaning toward support, but there are still several things that need to be fixed.
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavor (A) (British: flavour), armour (B) (American: armor), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), meter (A) (British: metre), sabre (B) (American: saber), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), diarrhea (A) (British: diarrhoea), pediatric (A) (British: paediatric), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic).