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

List of Dragonfly species recorded in Britain

I recognize that there are a very large proportion of red links here, but this so clearly in all other ways, such a well done list, that I thought I would nominate it anyway. Very clear and comprehinsive lead section, well organized and complete list, and outstanding references. Dsmdgold 22:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: No lead, or is the "Introduction" section supposed to be the lead? Yes there are a substantial number of red links, as well as some species that aren't even wikified, hiding the fact that they too would be red links. On List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago, there were initially a lot of red links, but they were eliminated, and it is now featured. Also, perhaps the main table could be a {{Prettytable}}? Lastly, for a list of this nature, it should have an image. Phoenix2 02:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unfortunately. The red links are indeed too much, but this list could be promoted in the future as most if not all of the other issues have been addressed. Phoenix2 16:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I feared that this would be the case. I tied to hunt up information on a few of the species without articles via Google, but there is very little informationonthe web, so unless I wanted to create stubs that read "The XYZ is a European dragonfly" plus a taxobox, then filling in these redlinks will require finding some other information source. I might even have to look in a book! Dsmdgold 22:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose – 1) simply too much of dragonfly blood (red links :) ) on this page. 2) There's also a lot of bold text which makes the page look ugly. Also, instead of typing Eng/Scot/Wal, E, S, W, NI abbrs. should suffice and make the table look much neater. Just explain the abbrs. before its use. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'm afraid. The criteria state that "A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles" - I'd want to see articles for at least 35 of the 56 species before I could support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:37, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Redlinks and too much bolding, which I find distracting - references should be in italics rather than bold and I don't see why the last 3 columns need to be bolded either. Very comprehensive though -- Ian ≡ talk 03:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this list has a lot of potential. However, the redlinks are a concern and the entire layout and formatting seems a bit confused. I'd love to see this renominated later when it has more blue links and is a bit more polished. Still, it's a very good start. --Sophitus 04:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)