Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Réunion Ibis/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Réunion Ibis

Réunion Ibis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Réunion Ibis/archive1

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have added practically all known info about, most PD images, and presented all controversies relating to the bird, and it has also been copyedited. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN5: publisher?
• FN9, 10: formatting
• Compare FNs 11 and 17. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think all these issues should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as per my good article review. A very strong article on a very interesting topic. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand why a Good Article review can be compatible with a Featured Article review, so I do not understand your rationale of referring back to your Good Article review. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my good article review, I felt the article was pretty much ready for FA status then. I find that the best good article reviews point towards FAC, and I try to do that in many of my own reviews; in this case, there was nothing else I could say. I read through the article again, and was happy that it was ready. I was also declaring a possible conflict of interest so that delegates could take that into account, if they felt it important. Do you now understand why I referred back to my good article review? (As an aside, why are you feeling the need to pester those who supported? It isn't like major issues have been dug up in subsequent reviews; a few small pointers have been brought up, along with some suggestions that aren't so great. Certainly nothing that suggests that the article is incomplete.) J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please withdraw the suggestion that I have pestered those supporting this article. Snowman (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop pestering me... J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Snowman (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh! Why so serious? FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Images are fine; all PD. A few are not Commons-safe, but they are uploaded locally and appropriately tagged. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I made a couple of minor edits, please check Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have noticed a tendency for you to support FA promotion early in the FA discussion of articles about birds; however, this is generally followed by lists of issues found by subsequent reviewers. Snowman (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, my thoughts about articles are rarely the same as those of other reviewers. I review with content, not style, in mind. As you can see below, interpretation is quite individual and subjective. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that reviewers bring a variety of skills and knowledge hence improvements to articles usually follow. Snowman (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should also consider whether you yourself make FA reviews more nitpicky and tedious than necessary. You frequently confuse guidelines with policy, as well as elevating your own (often eccentric) personal preferences to FA criteria. You also make blanket announcements of wanting "large changes", without actually specifying what it is you dislike. That is useless handwaving. And even when one of your subjective, non-FAC criterion suggestions are rejected, you stubbornly refuse to let them go. Sometimes it appears like you haven't even read the articles to begin with, since what you ask for is often already present, or is a complete misinterpretation. I say this from experience. Compare the length and tediousness of these two FACs where you contributed:[2][3] With these where you didn't:[4][5] FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to their own views and opinions. I have started discussions on the talk pages of Talk:Rodrigues Solitaire and Talk:Dodo about problems with verification that I think should have been fixed during FA discussions. Snowman (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it is always good to take evaluation of one's behaviour into account, especially when the same issues are noticed by many different people over and over again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by SandyGeorgia

Oppose for now, expect to strike, multiple

1. The Réunion Ibis (Threskiornis solitarius) is ... if the Threskiornis solitarius is an alternate name, it should be both bolded and italicized.

   This isn't done on other featured animal species articles, see for example California Condor, Lion, Bald Eagle, and Emperor Penguin. FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, I agree. AFAIK all the 100+ bird FAs and the thousands of bird species articles follow this practice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

   Alternate common names are emboldened in bird articles, but not binomial names. I understand that this style was thought to be the tidiest by consensus; although, all alternate names might logically be expected to be emboldened. Snowman (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, but then again, I don't see why this article should be the first to break the mold. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   Well, that's not right, but not worth dealing with if they've all been doing it wrong for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   I doubt you'll find any article about a taxon with a common name that doesn't do it this way. See the guideline here:[6] Scientific names are only bolded if the animal does not have a common name, for whatever reason. See for example Deinosuchus. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   We had a discussion on this very point some time ago (link) and the consensus was to leave the scientific name unbolded in parentheses. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

   Thank you, Cas! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

2. Images are facing off the page ... I believe the intent of the MOS guideline applies to both animals and people ... please juggle images so animals aren't looking off the page.

   I don't think that looks good, it creates clutter of images on the right side. Again, it is just a guideline for faces, not an FA criterion. Tons of other animal FAs have images that face away from the text. The problem would be the long synonym list, not the quotes. The guideline specifically says: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people need not be reversed simply to make the person's face point towards the text, and this should not be done if the reversal would materially mislead the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side)."[7] FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   Restore bullet point AGAIN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   Well, sorry, but remember, no one is doing this to annoy you, I've just never dealt with this manner of responding before. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   Move it back if you wish; I'm not going to tangle over one image. But a) there is no such thing as "clutter of images on the right", and b) I suggest the clutter here is the excess number of quote boxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   I added the MOS guideline above. As for quote boxes, I don't see what they have to do with anything? An image can be right aligned even if there's a box. The problem is that the taxobox has a long list of synonyms, which makes it intrude far down. I've fixed it by making the list collabsible and then right aligned the image in question.FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   The point about "clutter" was that images weren't cluttering, but excess quotes might be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

   I tend to agree about the quote box clutter. Generally I see them used for 'stand-alone' quotes, whereas most of these seem to follow directly on from the main text -- I think {{quote}} is more appropriate here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The style was implemented by someone else on a FAC I nominated some time back, and I and the reviewers tended to like it, so I've stuck to it since. The general impression was that it separated the article text from the old text in a clear way. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

1. In the mid 19th century, ... missing hyphen, pls review throughout.

   Fixed the single occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

2. An alternate name is mentioned in the second paragraph; is it not possible to get that mentioned sooner?

   Mentioned a bit sooner. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

3. The taxonomic history of the Réunion Ibis is very convoluted, ... is there a difference between "very convoluted" and "convoluted"? Please check for redundancy.

   Removed "very". FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

4. It has been claimed that Bertrand-François Mahé de La Bourdonnais sent a "Solitaire" to France ... weasly ... by whom?

   It is attributed to Billiard, 1822, but I'm not sure who it is. Added the name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Just random checks, I stopped there, the article is not in bad shape, but some additional prose review would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to propose more changes if necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've restored my bullet points (please look at my edit summaries to understand how to preserve numbering on response); I use bullet points so that you can enter one response, referencing numbers, to help avoid insanely long FACs (which seem to be the trend of late). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who removed the bullets, must be in the edit history somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You did: [8] This is how you respond to bullet points: [9] But you can shorten the FAC by adding a one-para response below, referencing my numbers. As in, 1, 3 and 5 fixed. Brief-- no need for FACs longer than articles because of threaded minutaie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, wasn't my intention then. But note that my FAC's only get longer than the articles themselves when Snowman drops by. He usually has a lot to say (and I personally have no problem with long FACs). See the Dodo and Mauritius Blue Pigeon discussions for comparison, where he did not chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Are there any ready-made statistics on FAC lengths? Snowman (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Snowmanradio that this article is hard to follow, and suggest clarity can be added right here in the lead:

• In the late 20th century, the discovery of a subfossil species of ibis led to the idea that the accounts actually referred to this bird.

The accounts of the Reunion Solitaires? "This bird" equals the Reunion Ibis? Too much confusion about which bird is which, I think can be tightened in this one sentence in the lead. Clarify "the accounts" and clarify "this bird". "The accounts" refers apparently to the previous para. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. All your issues should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I've struck my oppose as I've not got time for further review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. FunkMonk (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by Snowmanradio

I found this article somewhat difficult to read, so I suspect that the prose needs copy editing and perhaps the article needs reorganisation. Other issues: Snowman (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been copyedited already. Feel free to propose changes here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am anticipating that a number of reviewers will contribute to many improvements. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's hope so, but since you express you have something specific to mind, might as well brig it up. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I find the use of "Solitare" confusing, since the word solitaire can mean different things. Presumably the word should not be capitalised. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly when it is capitalised, it should be clearer that it is a name. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Réunion Solitaire or Rodrigues Solitaire? Snowman (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Rodrigues bird is referred to only by its full name, and only in the taxonomy section. I'm not sure who would be confused. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that understanding what is meant by Solitaire (with a capital S) added to my difficulty of reading the article. The heading is "Réunion Ibis" (the IOC and IUCN name) and I am not sure why it needs to be called a solitaire at any time except for saying that it is an alternative common name. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

When old accounts that use "Solitaire" are referred to, it would be too presumptuous to write "ibis" in the text. As stated below, the Ibis and Solitaire can never be shown to be the same entity without doubt. See how Birdlife International cautiously terms it: "If the Réunion 'solitaires' were indeed T. solitarius" and "It seems likely that the 'solitaire' known from numerous early accounts from Réunion(Cheke 1987) and Rodrigues, Mauritius, was in fact this ibis" FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Or rather, rejected. You have not responded to my arguments above. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It is Sand Martin and House Martin. The House Martin is a martin that makes mud nests. Martin is a lower case here. It is Reuniun Solitaire, but why should "Solitaire" be capitalised? Snowman (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Solitaire" was the common name for this species at the time, I don't see what it has to do with "martin", which refers to a type of bird today, and such names are not capitalised. A "solitaire" is not a type of bird. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Check and Hume 2004 (one of the main sources) use "solitaire" 46 times in their article. It is all lower case 44 times, all upper case once in a heading, and it is capitalised only once where it is in a quote from 1897. Snowman (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, good precedent. Does this include the full common name "Réunion Solitaire" as well, or is that name even used by them? FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Common names of birds are usually capitalised. Why is solitaire in inverted commas in "connected to the "solitaire" accounts."? The infobox seems inconsistent, because it is headed Reunion Ibis and the image is captioned Reunion Solitaire. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed the quote marks. Schlegel did not know of any ibis when he drew the image based on accounts (he placed it in the genus Didus in the same article), so retroactively labelling it a such is not needed. See also the caption at King Island Emu. The original terminology is of historical importance. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I note that in his review (below) User Casliber thought; "... it might be simpler and less misleading to remove "of the Réunion Solitaire" from the caption of the taxobox illustration", and that it has been removed. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the image has simply been replaced with another one. The caption is the same for that image, it's just under description. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I refer to this edit, which removed "Reunion Solitaire" from the caption of the infobox image to reduce confusion. There is now a new image and a new caption. Snowman (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So it shouldn't be a problem either way now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• The term "Réunion Ibis Solitaire" appears once and I do not know what this is supposed to indicate. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, seems to have been added during copyediting. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the introduction; "Therefore, the Réunion Solitaire was classified as a member of the pigeon subfamily Raphinae, and even placed in the same genus as the Dodo by some authors." This is like saying "Therefore, the Earth was thought to be flat", without putting it in context. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The context is given prior to the sentence you quote. You took it out of its context yourself. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that this sentence should clearly say that it is an out-of-date point of view. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to tweak it. But it seems a bit redundant, since the sentence is preceded by "were incorrectly assumed to refer to white relatives of the Dodo" FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Dod-eersen" this appears in an old quote. I would not expect many readers to understand this unless they were interested in Dodos and old Dutch journals from ships. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hence the explanation prior to the quote. But I'll clarify it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It see the amendment, but is is clear? Snowman (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure how a new reader would see this, because I am aware that "Dod-eersen" can refer to a Dodo in old ship journals. However, I expect that this odd old Dutch word would add to the difficulty in reading the article for many. What about using an explanatory footnote? Snowman (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it some square brackets then, more likely to be viewed by a reader than a footnote. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• In bird articles the description section generally occurs earlier in the article than seen here, and it may help to follow suite in this article. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They don't, the taxonomy and evolution sections are always first, here they're just longer than average, since that's basically most there is to say about the bird. Can you show me any bird FAs where these sections aren't first? See also my examples above, which also have the same structure. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This article does not have an evolution section, but a re-organisation to include a section on evolution would probably be helpful. This article has a section headed "Modern identification", before the description heading. Snowman (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The identity issue is obviously part of the taxonomy. Could as well be called "modern taxonomic interpretation" or similar. I can rename it, or simply merge the sections, whatever you like. Moving it further down wouldn't make sense. We need an explanation and disclaimer before "merging" the entities in the lower sections. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be clearer to separate "historical confusion" from "modern nomenclature and taxonomy". Snowman (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps with taxonomy as heading, and two subheadings. I'll try something out. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that it would be worth putting the description section earlier, since the taxonomy section is rather long and complicated. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I think it is a bad idea. The description and behaviour sections are pretty much a scientific synthesis of facts about the fossil ibis and the old Solitaire accounts, a thorough explanation is needed before the reader gets to that section. And a brief description is also given in the taxonomy section, already. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, the redundancy of repeating a description in the taxonomy can be avoided by putting the description section higher up the page. This issue may not affect FA status. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The first description featured is in an old quote, so the redundancy is not in the text itself. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Article inconsistency: The article says; "No specimens of the bird were ever collected." It then goes on to say that two were sent to France (but did not survive) and that Billiard claimed that Bertrand-François Mahé de La Bourdonnais sent another to France. Snowman (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They were sent, but died on the ship, and the remains weren't preserved. So perhaps it should be "no specimens were ever preserved". "Collected" was used in the source. As for the one bird, the article explains why this was most likely not a Réunion Solitaire. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that you can see the problem. Snowman (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: the African origin of this ibis. See the subsection "Madagascar: African affinities" in Cheke and Hume (2008). This could feature in a new subsection headed "Evolution". The Wiki article says a close relative is "... the Straw-necked Ibis (T. spinicollis) of Australia." However, Cheke and Hume distances the Reunion Ibis from the Australian ibis saying that they "relate best to African forms.Snowman (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's enough for an entire section, but could be mentioned near the part about its closest relatives in the identity subsection. As for Hume's claim that's it's closer related to the African form, the actual describers of the bird makes no such claim, and Hume doesn't seem to go into detail about why. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Cheke and Hume paper says that the Reunion Ibis clearly has an African origin and is descended from Malagasy forms. Going on this, I think that the article might have the wrong emphasis in saying that its closest relatives are the African Ibis (from Africa) and the Straw-necked Ibis (from Australia). Some of the other Ibises of the same genus are also mainly black and white, so the article's emphasis of the black and white colour of those two ibises does not make sense to me. It is difficult to know what to do when different authorities have different opinions; however, there is no ambiguity in Cheke and Hume, who say "clearly has an African origin", so why ignore it. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, the actual describers, Mourer-Chauviré and Moutou did a cladistic analysis, where those two species were found to be about equally close to the Réunion bird. Ther Australian one is even closer in one feature: "In T. solitarius the minor and major metacarpals are fused over a longer distance, at both proximal and distal extremities, than in T. aethiopicus, but the same is true in T. spinicollis". I'm not sure what Cheke and Hume base their conclusions on, and they've already been proved wrong with their interpretation of Mascarinus as a psittaculine, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mourer-Chauviré and Moutou (1987) or Cheke and Hume (2008)? What is the preference for a 1987 paper over a 2008 paper? Snowman (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring to the 1999 paper. Morphological analysis is more reliable than guesswork and assumptions, I'd say. Only genetic testing can make sure, as the Mascarinus case clearly shows. Should be possible some day, and until then, the African hypothesis doesn't warrant more than the sentence I've given it. Especially since many Mascarene birds actually seem to have an Asian origin. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mascarene Parrot has an African origin closely related to the Lesser Vasa Parrot from Madagascar (2012 genetic study). Snowman (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Whereas Cheke and Hume proposed an Asian origin, only to be proven wrong a few years later. The Dodo and Rodrigues Solitaire, on the other hand, have been shown to be of Asian origin, through genetic analysis. The jury is still out on the Red Rail. In any case, the following should be enough: "The African Sacred Ibis also has similar coloured plumage to that described in the old descriptions of the Réunion Solitaire. It may be closer to that species, and therefore of African origin." FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

But the article indicates that "the Straw-necked Ibis (T. spinicollis) of Australia." is its second closest relative and the section that I have read in Cheke and Hume does not imply this. Cheke and Hume indicates that ibises on Reunion are "clearly related to African forms". The only relevant in-line reference is to Cheke and Hume. If you have used information from Mourer-Chauviré and Moutou (1999), then it should be included as an in-line reference here. Snowman (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I see, I moved the 1995 reference forward, which says the same. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest a spot check on randomly selected text for missing in-line references. Snowman (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see how the sentence implies more than the Cheke Hume source. It simply lists the two birds, without claiming anything in regard to closest relation. So it was fine even before. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say in Cheke and Hume specifically that the Straw-necked Ibis is so closely related? The statement in Cheke and Hume "clearly related to African forms" seems to contradict that the Straw-necked Ibis of Australia is very closely related. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

See the box on page 103. But that's irrelevant now, since the citation has been changed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This box is not used as an in-line reference. Has information for the article been sourced from this box? Snowman (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, I replaced the citation. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• This ibis is not a white dodo, so why are there so many images of a white Dodo in the article. Two of the images of a white Dodo look similar. I think that the images of the white Dodo are excessive. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The two 1600s paintings were directly responsible for the entire white Dodo myth, so I don't think so. The Frohawk image shows how embedded and accepted the idea was in 19th century literature, so it is important too. The latter is also so frequently republished that it is good to finally point out here that it is actually based on nothing, even I thought it depicted an actual specimen before I read up on the bird some years ago. I agree that such images should not be used outside the taxonomy sections, but they aren't anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There are four images showing a white Dodo, but the ibis is not a white Dodo. The captions do not explain the confusion over the white Dodo and I think the captions are not adequate. Why does the article need the image captioned; "Frohawk's 1907 adaptation of the Withoos Dodo"? Snowman (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the ibis is not a Dodo, but the Solitaire was thought to be. They were believed to be different entities until recently. We can never be sure if they represented the same bird. But I'll expand the captions. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not make another article for Reunion Solitaire (Raphus solitarius)? Snowman (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We can never be sure if the "Du" of New Caledonian legend actually is Sylviornis. But I doubt anyone would ever create a separate "Du" article, since the likelihood of them being the same is so large. Same in this case. Remember, there are several entities within the "Solitaire" complex that could warrant articles if we took it that far: The Ibis, the white Dodo, the white Rodrigues Solitaire, and the Réunion Solitaire itself. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Omission: dates of the images in captions. Snowman (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll give the estimated dates, the 1600s paintings have not been dated exactly. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

• In the introduction "... and the bird was first described in 1987." This sounds odd, because there are images of the bird dating back to about 1600 in the article. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Should be scientifically described. And in any case, no contemporary images of the actual Solitaire exist. The white Dodos are likely just albinistic Mauritius birds, as ther article states. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the introduction "raphine"; jargon. Snowman (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what members of raphinae are called. There is no other term. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

... that does not make it easy-to-underdstand jargon. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

When it is preceded by "the Réunion Solitaire was long believed to be a member of the pigeon subfamily Raphinae", what else could it possibly mean? I don't think we need to underestimate the intellect of the readers. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Raphinae" is also jargon. An intelligent person may wonder why the introduction is written by using two different words (which both turn out to indicate the same sub-family). It certainly would make it more difficult to read by some. We are looking for simplification in the introduction, so use anything possible to make it easier to read. Why not write it differently and only use one word for the subfamily. Make the introduction easy to read, clear, and unambiguous. Snowman (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at our featured dinosaur articles[10][11][12], which use similar terms. There is no common name for this family, unlike many other bird families. This article, and many others about extinct birds, have more in common with those covered by the palaeontology project. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The readability issue of having two different words of jargon in the introduction and both indicate the same sub-family is unresolved. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Raphidae is the subfamily. A "raphine" is a member of that subfamily. Just like a "tyrannosaurid" is a member of Tyrannosauridae. There is no issue to resolve, unless our goal is to dumb down the article. That's what simple Wikipedia is for. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it myself by saying "this subfamily" instead of "raphine". Snowman (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the introduction "wiped-out"; probably unconventional language in science. Might be difficult to read by people who have a non-English first language. Snowman (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That is one of the weirdest arguments I've ever read in a FAC. This article is written for English speakers. This is the English Wikipedia. My first language isn't English, yet I don't have a problem understanding what I write here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

My only language is English and "wipe out" sounds odd to me as used in the introduction. Of course, I know what wipeout (wikilink to a dab page) means, however I think that "extinct" should be written in instead, because this would be more conventional and precise. Snowman (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I worded it a bit more eloquently. I think "wipe out" is crude, rather than hard to understand. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that I was entirely correct in pointing to this problem and suggesting a sensible improvement. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the cause, I think the present wording is indeed better. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wiped out occurs in "had wiped out the wildlife in the lowlands". I think that you should have realised that this phase appears in the article more than once. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? You only brought up the intro. The same term is used in the source, so I don't see why it should be replaced throughout. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that an alternative word would be better than wiped out. Did cats wipe out all wildlife in the lowlands? Did they wipe out all animals, birds, fish and reptiles in the lowlands? An added complexity is the wildlife can also mean vegetation. Snowman (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The source says both "wildlife" and "wipe out". I don't think it's up to us to reinterpret the sources and give info a potentially different meaning. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Or rather something you don't personally like, which has no relevance to actual FAC criteria. This is getting silly, could we please stick to constructive criticism that is based on actual FAC criteria so this page doesn't get longer than the last one? FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are on thin ice here. How can feral cats wipe out wildlife in the lowlands? Surely, they must have left some forms of wildlife to exist there. Snowman (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ask Cheke and Hume. Anywhow, just to get the ball rolling, I've written "decimated the wildlife" instead, also sounds fancier. FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that you see the problem. Personally speaking, I think that "decimated" is not the right word here. Decimate has more than one meaning. It could mean reduce by a tenth (as also used in Roman times) or severely reduce. Snowman (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's more that, at this point, I just want to get on with it. So what do you suggest? FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed it myself using "last stronghold" and "feral cats hunted wildlife". I note that User FunkMonk made an improvement based on my version. Snowman (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the introduction "... merely showed an aberrant Mauritius Dodo." This can not be left like this in the introduction, since readers who only read the introduction are likely to get the wrong impression and have no idea that the white Dodo could be a normal juvenile Dodo (or a normal female). Snowman (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It has never been suggested it was white because it was a female. And aberrant merely means different from the norm, which is of course a grey Dodo. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have seen discussion about the white Dodo including that it could be a normal juvenile. I recall that the discussion also included that it could be a normal female. I think that the introduction gives the wrong impression and needs amending. In many bird species young juvenile birds are a different colour to the adult bird and this does not make the young bird aberrant. See the section on the White Dodo in the Dodo article, which mentions the possibility of a white Dodo being a female or a juvenile. Snowman (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it. As for the Dodo article, since I wrote it in the first place, I know that you've misinterpreted it. The sex dimorphism theory was to explain why the images showed yellow wings instead of black as in the accounts, it has nothing to do with the white colour. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A white Dodo might be a normal juvenile Dodo. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It might, but note also that the Dodo in this[13] painting has been speculated to be juvenile, and it isn't particularly white. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Both images could be correct depending on what age they change colour. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, either is really irrelevant now, since the wording has already been changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have listed a sample of problems in the introduction above. It may be necessary for the introduction to have a complete re-write. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Only if you point out exactly what needs to be rewritten. Not all these suggestions are particularly usable. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

My point that I am making is that I have found a number of factors in the introduction that make it difficult to read and perhaps some parts could be misleading. I have listed a few problems from the introduction to point authors of the article in what I think is the right direction. Snowman (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Replacing a few words hardly counts as a "complete rewrite". FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A few things in the introduction have been improved. However, I think that the introduction continues to have readability issues. I think it may be best for new reviewers to have a look. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the issues are so obvious and striking, they shouldn't be too hard to point out, no? FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I have helped to unscramble some of the factual content of the introduction. Some people are really good and quick at copy-editing and I would rather hand over to a copy-editor to handle the complexities of the English language relevant to the introduction at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. But note that it has already been copyedited, and that no one else seem to be this confused by the intro so far. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia has commented on the introduction (or lead); see this edit. Snowman (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

All her suggestions were subsequently fixed, so that is hardly relevant now. But anyhow, let's wait and see, if you don't have more suggestions yourself. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you noticed that she is currently opposing FA status? Snowman (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

She hasn't responded since I fixed the issues, so I'm not sure why it should come as a surprise. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh, what is unresolved? You have not proposed any changes in this section. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have listed above a sample of issues in the introduction and I am anticipating that editors will be proactive and fix other problems like it in the introduction. I also think that the introduction is too long (see below) mainly because of too much detail on old taxonomy and old nomenclature. Snowman (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem is, the bulk of literature about this bird is about old taxonomy and interpretations, since there is practically nothing else known about the bird. You can't expect this article to have a different focus than all actual published literature about the subject, that is pretty absurd. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, since the intro is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, the space given to taxonomic history is appropriate, since more than half of the article itself is about this. FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no perfect introduction, but a suspect few more improvements can be made and I hope more reviewers have a look. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Introduction length: My impression is that there is too much detail in the introduction particularly on old taxonomy and nomenclature, so I decided to look at WP:LEADLENGTH. It suggests that an article of 15,000–30,000 characters should aim to have two or three paragraphs in the introduction. Currently article readable prose size (text only) is 16 kB (2725 words) and the introduction has four paragraphs. Snowman (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, the taxonomic history is very important in this case. Unless someone else chimes in and complains about it, I think it's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You haven't suggested anything that is actually in the FA criteria. The intro to article ratio is just a guideline, not a criterion. Likewise, the detail issue is subjective. Drastic changes that are not obvious improvements, like many of those you propose, should at least have more support from other reviewers before I'll consider them. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

After actually looking at the guideline, there is only a suggestion of how long the intro should be in relation to the article, not how short. So your demand is misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that the suggested introduction are guidelines, but I suspected that there was too much difficult-to-read detail in the introduction before I reminded myself of the length guidelines. I recall some FA discussions that were the catalyst for editors to go to a lot of trouble to get the introduction to an appropriate size. Snowman (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

But what you propose has nothing to do with the actual guideline. The guideline doesn't indicate the intro should be shorter. It is about the minimum length of intros in relation to text, not maximum. FunkMonk (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article". See WP:LEADLENGTH. Snowman (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Immediately followed by "As a general guideline—not an absolute rule", while linking to "Ignore all rules". You're a bit selective with your quotes there. It is by no means a FAC criterion, that should be pretty clear, and has no bearing on whether this article should pass or fail. FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the introduction is quite a bit longer than the guidelines suggest, so this is a relevant talking point here. Snowman (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I note that User FunkMunk has shortened the introduction with this edit. Snowman (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Which should be a good thing, no? FunkMonk (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is a good that you shortened the introduction. However, I am puzzled why you initially thought the length was fine after I had suggested the introduction was too long. Snowman (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's just one of those things I do to keep you happy! FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• The important thing about the lead is that it summarises, in the correct proportion, the key points of the article. Its precise length or paragraph count is secondary to this. It is far better for a lead to be slightly too long than, as in most cases, far too short. In a perfect world the two paragraphs which deal with taxonomy would be merged and slightly shortened while the end of the last paragraph would be split to a new, slightly extended one on ecology, habitat and extinction, but this is a matter of slight sentence-shuffling: FA-class is not reserved for perfect articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

^See, that is a constructive suggestion, with tangible pointers instead of hand-waving. I'll see what I can do. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now reworked the intro, following the specific and helpful suggestions made by Thumperward. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am grateful for User Thumperward's suggestions, which are very likely to be useful for fixing readability issues that I have raised. I think User Thumperward's has expressed his insight eloquently. Snowman (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The reason why it was impossible to implement it when you suggested it was that you mixed up two unrelated issues, length and content, without actually pointing out anything specific in the text. Please be a bit more concise with your suggestions henceforward. That is the "blanket statement" problem I mentioned above, which you need to take seriously if your reviews are to be of any use. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I note your request to be spoon fed. Nevertheless, I think that general comments can be received well by pro-active Wikipedians with an open mind. I make general comments and specific comments. I have a background is science, and I prefer to leave systematic copy editing of the English language and most MoS issues to editors who specialise in these areas. 19:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That statement is a bit incongruent with this[14] edit. Expressing oneself concisely has nothing to do with "spoon-feeding". That is quite an important quality to have on a text based project like this. Again, handwaving is nothing but a waste of time. I won't make drastic changes to an article if your only argument is "I don't like the intro because I don't get it", without any specific suggestions. The problem is that you don't take rejection calmly, but stubbornly attach yourself to every minor suggestion you make, as if it was core Wikipedia policy. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to there own views and opinions. Snowman (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but if a change you suggest isn't an obvious improvement, but even a degradation, you have to accept if it isn't implemented, and not just label the issue as "unresolved". It is not "unresolved", it is rejected as not being an improvement, and as being irrelevant to FA criteria and Wikipedia policies. And then we can move on to the next issue, instead of argung in circles for a month every damn time. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no perfect introduction. After recent changes, I think that the introduction may be approaching FA standard, and I hope that more reviewers have a look at it. There seems to be repetition with both "reduced flight capabilities" and "It had difficulty flying" in the introduction, and this seems to be an example of an obvious remaining problem. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It is intentional. First instance refers to the old accounts, the second refers to the fossils. I'll clarify it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been thinking about the length of the introduction, which now consists of four paragraphs including a double-sized second paragraph. The suggested length is two or three paragraphs for an article the size of this one. I think that the introduction needs to be simplified and shortened. I am aware that my suggestion is does not offer any specific copy-editing suggestions and that Wiki guidelines on introduction length are not strict rules, so I would welcome opinions on the length and complexity of the introduction. If there is a consensus, then editors might like to focus on more specific ways to make it easier to read and perhaps shorter. Snowman (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As Thumperward noted above, the issue of length isn't really an FA criterion. So I don't see what would objectively be gained, other than your personal approval. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This introduction = 402 words. Free prose in entire article = 2743 words. About 14.7% of the free prose is the introduction in this article. I think that the length of the introduction is a relevant criteria to discuss in here. I note that the length of introductions is also discussed in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Augustinian theodicy/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aaliyah (album)/archive1. These were the first two examples that I found of long introductions that had been discussed in FA discussions and I expect that there are probably more. Snowman (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Then we need to know how long those intros were before we can compare. In any case, it is not an FA criterion, and we have already discussed the issue at length, and reached a compromise. At this point, it's just useless ant fucking. Pardon my French. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• "seasonal fat-cycles"; jargon in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Then rephrase it if you don't like it, don't just remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that your reply could be written differently. It is jargon and I do not know what it means. Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the article? "As contemporary accounts are inconsistent on whether the Solitaire was flightless or had some flight capability, Mourer-Chauvire suggested that this was dependent on fat-cycles; it was described as being "fat", so perhaps it could not fly when it was so, but could when it was thin." FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This sounds really unusual to me. Are there any other wild birds that can not fly when they are fat and can fly when they are thin? The article says "Mourer-Chauvire suggested that this was dependent on fat-cycles", which has turned into "seasonal fat-cycles" in the introduction. There is therefore information in the introduction regarding the nature of fat-cycles (whatever they are), which is not in the text of the article. Snowman (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Seasonal fat cycles is apparently a feature of many Mascarene birds. I think Cheke and Hume go into more detail on this. I'll add "seasonal" to the main text then. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole sentence is now"; Subfossil wing-bones indicate it had reduced flight capabilities, a feature perhaps linked to seasonal fat-cycles." I think that this sentence will tend to mystify readers. Surely, the most important factor linked to reduced flight capabilities is the absence of predators on the island and hence a reduced evolutionary drive to preserve flight. Snowman (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, intros are not supposed to go into detail, they're mere summaries. If people are mystified, they can just read the article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "walghvogel"; unexplained old Dutch. Snowman (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is old Dutch needed here? Snowman (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

For colour. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am mystified. Vogel means bird, but two on-line translators did not translate "walgh" or "walghvogel". Snowman (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Then what? Do I need to explain the numerous etymologies for "dod-eers" too? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• "As Réunion was populated, ..."; populated with what? Snowman (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Settlers, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omissions: other commons names, Réunion Sacred Ibis, Réunion Flightless Ibis. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never encountered a source using these, I think it was only briefly used in the 90s, and will never be used again. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

See IUCN species page for a reference for the Reunion Sacred Ibis. Snowman (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I know, but their mere presence there doesn't mean the names are in use. They may have been used a few times each in the literature, but are abandoned now. In any case, wasn't it you who craved a shorter intro? Adding a horde of defunct names won't make it shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that readers who arrive on the page via redirects will be helped by including these alternate names in the introduction (which needs simplification in my opinion). Snowman (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt anyone would even search for those names. They could perhaps be mentioned in the article, but again, I know of no literature that use them or explain them. FunkMonk (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

See The Sixth Extinction website, which only uses Réunion Sacred Ibis, Réunion Flightless Ibis as English common names. Snowman (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The sacred part could be added, I'm not so sure with "flightless". FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree. Of course, "flightless" may be a misnomer. Snowman (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Since Réunion was not visited by Europeans until 1635, the 1611 painting could not have shown a bird from there.[17]"; See in "Flightless Birds" by Clive Roots. 2006. page 189. It says Portuguese saw the ibis in 1613. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That is so incorrect that it hardly warrants a comment. First of all, Francois Leguat coined the name for the Rodrigues bird after the Réunion species decades later, the author seems to be misinterpreting or citing outdated sources. Below he gives an equally incorrect account of the Broad-billed Parrot. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Since Réunion was not visited by Europeans until 1635, ..."; the en-Wiki and fr-Wiki articles on Réunion also says that Portugese visited the island before 1635 and these parts of the Wiki articles are referenced. Snowman (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed it, the source was a bad summary of another paper which did not make the exact same claim. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why not quote Dubois directly from page 170 of his book? I might be wrong, but it seems to me that there may be slightly different ways to translate certain parts of the quote. For example, his book does not mention a "Turkey-chicks", as far as I can determine. It also seems to say "one of the best game" and not "It is the best game", but I am not very good on the French language and used on-line translators. Snowman (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll check the date issue out. As for the quote, I'd rather use more complete quotes in authorised translations than snipped ones. Differences may be due to editions of the works. For example, only the first edition of Bontekoe's book includes an engraving of a Dodo, later ones don't. In any case, "Poullets d'Inde" is "turkeys", see also:[15] FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If quote boxes are going to be used on this page, then I think that old quotes should have the original source for validation. I am fairly sure that some Wikipedians specialise in translations, so it should be relatively easy to obtain a translation of the short section of the original French book. Snowman (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'd rather use authoritative sources than homebrewed stuff. Verifiability, you know, it's a Wikipedia tenet. And again, there is no problem with that translation, turkeys are mentioned. It is your own oversight. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely, it will be easier to verify with the original book as one of the sources. Snowman (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Then go ahead and add it as a citation next to the existing one. FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Two on-line translators say "Poulets d'Inde" (with one "l") means "chickens of India" not turkeys. Walter Rothchild (W.R.) translated it as "Porphyrio", see a quote from the same book on the Réunion Night Heron article. Snowman (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You won't get far with a direct Google translation, that should be pretty obvious. See: http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/poulet_d%E2%80%99Inde It basically means "fowl of India", as in West India. Thus turkeys. See also: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinde "Ramené en Europe par les conquistadors espagnols en 1521, lors de la Conquête du Mexique, que l'on croyait être les Indes, ce volatile a pris le nom de « poule d'Inde », que l'usage a ramené à « dinde ». -- Curieusement, les Anglo-Saxons le désignent sous le nom de « poule de Turquie » ('Turkey Hen')." FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that we need a French speaking Wikipedian to help out with translation, because two on-line translators say it mean chicken and Walter Rothchild says it means Porphyro (see above). I do not know much about French, so you are probably correct about the Turkey. I am puzzled by Rothchilds interpretation. Has the meaning of the word changed over the centuries? Snowman (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So the article says it means "Turkey-chicks" and you say it means "Turkey" or "Turkey hen" above? See French dictionary, which I think says that "dinde" is an abbreviation for "poulet d’Inde". Where did the "-chick" part come from in the quote featured in the article? Snowman (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Poulet" can have various meanings, especially since it seems to be archaic. Even in English, "chicken" can even refer to an adult bird, as long as it is food. As for Rothschild, he wasn't exactly known for being cautious with his interpretations of old sources. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

...but "-chick" in English does imply a young bird or a very young bird. Saying that a bird has legs like a turkey chick is not very descriptive without specifying the age of the chick. I think that the Frenchman was using everyday animal comparisons in his account that people would easily understand. Similarly many anatomy descriptions are based on everyday items; for example a "nutmeg liver". Snowman (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In any case, the 1848 translation by Strickland omits "chick", so we could perhaps use his instead. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Another difference is that the 1897 translation says "It is one of the best Game on the Island" at the end (the same as Google translator). I think that translation is a art and subjective, so I suggest providing more than one in-line citation for the sourcing of a translation. Snowman (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it pleases you, change it. Again, these things are nitpicks that go beyond FA criteria, but feel free to add what you like. I won't. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hume and Cheke 2004 call it a turkey in their paper when they refer to Dubois' work. See also note 2 in that paper where they attribute Oliver as the translator and point out another error in Oliver's translation, which appears in the article, helping to prove that the quote is actually from Oliver's work. To me it seems that the translation peculiarities indicate that sections of Oliver's 1897 work appears in long quotes in the article and these are not properly attributed. Attribution is a basic principal on the Wiki that a stub should be compliant with. Snowman (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omissions; old quotes are sourced from translations in books. Verification would be better if the original version of the quote is also provided as a source. I have recently added one old source for DuBois's description of the ibis, which was known as a solitaire at that time. Snowman (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add what you find. But I won't be doing any searching for such, it isn't necessary, there's no urgent need for us to go past what recent published sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that it would be best source the 1897 translation by Captain Pasfield, which is a little different to the version currently used that is copied from the modern journals and books. Using the 1897 translation, the work of translation can be attributed with certainty and the PD copyright can be assured. Snowman (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know what the differences are first. This translation is from 1907. There's a different one from 1848. FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have sourced 1907 translations, then that is fine. However, the article's documentation of the 1907 translation including attribution for the translator is incomplete or missing. Snowman (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that's what citations are for. We don't attribute photos in captions either, unless such info is of interest to the reader. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

...but the article does not give attribution (to the translators of quotes) in citations or anywhere else. The in-line citations would be a good place to put all the attributions for citations, so that they can be seen under a heading such as "Notes" or "References" towards the end of the article. Of course, images have their attributions on the image file. Snowman (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The Réunion Ibis lived alongside other recently extinct birds such as the ... [long list of animals]."; It also lived on the island with creatures that are still present. A broader range of animals would describe the fauna of its time better. It lived with a variety of lizards, geckos, and insects that are likely to be seen as food by ibis. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add it if you can source it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Listing creatures that have also become extinct does not add much to ecology. Snowman (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So what do you think of the "paleoecology" sections that are present in all dinosaur FAs? They were part of their ecological systems when they existed, so of course they matter. What's left of native wildlife there is so pathetic to not even being an ecosystem anymore. The main point of Cheke and Hume's work is to theoretically reconstruct the ancient ecosystem, by listing such extinct animals. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A creature that became extinct a few hundred years ago also lived with many creatures that are still living, so a list of extinct animals seems rather limited to me. It might be different creatures that became extinct millions of years ago. Snowman (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your last sentence means. All these animals are recently extinct. If Cheke and Hume find faunal lists of extinct animals useful for understanding the ancient ecosystem, I don't think there's much reason for us to doubt them, or that our doubt even merits action. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by Snowmanradio (2)

• Some of the quotes in the article are copies of translations of old PD foreign language works. If the newer English versions are copyrighted, then complete paragraphs of the translation should not be copied to the Wiki. "This is true as well of the translations in the Penguin Classics series. Although faithful translations of public domain works, they each are protected by copyright."; see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works. It presume that it will be necessary to find out when the translations were published in order determine the copyright status of translated quotes in the article. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There are only 19th century translations. Newer sources simply use those too. Republishing PD stuff doesn't renew its copyright. But even if we assume they were copyrighted, see the long copyrighted quote at: Thylacine FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that translating a PD work gives the newly created translated work a new copyright. I think that the copyright and attribution of all the quotations should be checked systematically in a similar way that the copyrights of images is checked. Snowman (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, irrelevant here, since all the translations are from 1907 and before. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You might be correct, but how does anyone know from the current documentation in the article. Snowman (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look. But again, how do you explain the quote in Thylacine? It seems to me that quotes come under fair use. They're not hosted on Commons, after all. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have had a quick look at Thylacine and provisionally I would say the quote from R Dawkins is probably copyvio. Also, I think that it should have been excluded with Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. I do not know if it is fair use or not, but the fair use rules on the en Wiki are strict and I will be surprised if it is fair use. It does not seem necessary or important for the article to me. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Would be good to know what the actual guidelines say about copyrighted quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The original quotes and translations (where necessary) of the quotes may all be in PD by luck rather than judgement, but I think that you will need to make this obvious in the documentation by finding out about the date of the translation. This is a consequence of copying long quotes into the Wiki article, which must not be a copy vio. Snowman (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted_material_and_fair_use So in theory, a few non-PD quotes could be used, as long they are attributed properly. Luckily, ours are PD. "Fair use does not need to be invoked for public domain works or text available under a CC-By-SA-compatible free license, so in such cases the extent of quotations is simply a matter of style." FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There will not be a copyright problem if the works and translations are all early, as they seem to be. I have done a rather random check on some of the quotes, but I have not done a systematic check on all of the quotes. Snowman (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the quotes, should the work of language translation be attributed? Snowman (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean who translated it? That's what the citations are for. And in many cases it isn't even stated in the books. Since they're PD anyway, it doesn't really matter, but add if you find out. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, on the Wiki it is much more preferable to attribute PD works, and I presume that this will include the work of translation of PD works. I have found out that Captain Samuel Pasfield Oliver translated Dubois and Leguat. Snowman (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, could give an interesting historical context, if anything. Again, add what you find. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Giving the proper attributions for the work of translation would be fair. I do not see what this has got to do with historical context. My role here is as a reviewer. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, since these things go beyond FAC criteria, if you want them added, you must do it yourself. I don't find it particularly important. I don't see any guidelines that say what you propose is necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Attribution is a basic principal here. Even Stub articles should have appropriate attribution. I see that you have used Rothchild (1907), as a source for some of the quotes in the article. Sometimes Rothchild says that his quotes are from Dubois (1674) and translated, but he does not say who the translator was, as far as I can see. Snowman (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the quotes themselves have sources, and have been republished by practically all subsequent authors. You need to demonstrate that it is an FA criterion to show who translated a PD text in a published source over a century ago before I'll waste time tracking this down. Or you can do it yourself, if you find it so important. The point of attribution on Wikipedia is for verification, not credit. From this point, suggestions that are not related to actual FA criteria will be ignored, unless feasible. This FAC doesn't need to take a month. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article had got blocks of texts in quotes from Oliver's 1897 translation. The quotes in the article have the same style, peculiarities, and errors as Oliver's work. I think that Dubois quotes in the article should attribute Oliver for the translation from French and source his book. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources, which says "Whether copyright-expired or in the public domain for other reasons, material from public-domain sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed.". This is important. Snowman (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Those who wrote that obviously meant material as in original text written by someone, not that we should go and hunt down extremely obscure info on who translated what back in the 19th century. But as I said, please add such info if you find it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, it looks to me that Oliver's work of translation is not attributed nor sourced directly from his book in English of Dubois' French book. Snowman (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And as I stated earlier, feel free to add it. No one is holding you back. FunkMonk (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My role with this is as a reviewer. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your role is to give advise that is relevant to the FAC criteria. I'm sorry to say that it doesn't concern this FAC that you just discovered that Walter Rothschild quoted a translation from someone else over a hundred years ago, a fact which has not been mentioned in any of the relevant literature since. It is a mere curiosity that you can add if it so pleases you. It'll take as long as it does for you to reply to this comment. FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Attribution is important on the Wiki. It would be quite easy to attribute Dobois' translated work to Oliver. This is the Dubois' 1674 book, and this is Oliver's 1897 book, and both should open on the section of the books about birds. However, I have not looked into the translations of the other quotes, and you seem to be more familiar with those than me. Snowman (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You personally discovered Rothschild quoted Oliver. It is your own pet peeve, not mine. I couldn't care less, and the quotes are already PD and cited to a prominent source, however you turn it. So do it yourself, or forget it. I've done my part. And I repeat: The point of attribution on Wikipedia is for verification, not credit. The article cites a source which includes this text, but it doesn't matter where it appeared first. It is already verifiable, Understand? FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that your comment could have been phrased differently. Anybody can see the long translated quotes in the article that are based on Dubois 1674 French book alongside Oliver's 1897 English translation and see similarities. I note that Rothchild's book was published in 1907. The issue is about attribution (including attribution for translated works), not verification. Snowman (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, it would had taken you less time to add the citations than writing the above comments. And no, I'm still not convinced it is an FA criterion to clarify whoever published translations of a couple of PD sentences first. But well, if a second opinion could be provided, who knows? FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have attributed one of the quotations by Dubois and translated by Oliver. I provided the sources above, so anyone could have done it quite quickly. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool! And on that note, nice you found that Dubois had an article. I've been looking for that. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: Debois mentions feral goats on Reunion a lot. He also mentions pigs with horns (?hogs). Snowman (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Pigs are mentioned under extinction. As for goats, I'm not sure how they would affect this bird. Many animals were introduced at the time, but their impact was not the same, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The goat Wiki article says that goats remove native scrub, trees, and other vegetation. This probably is not as harmful as pigs, if pigs sniff out and eat eggs in ground nests. Snowman (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. In any case, no sources mention interaction between goats and the solitaire. FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• "fat-cycles": jargon. Is this hyphenated expression used anywhere else? Why not substitute with "weight fluctuations". Snowman (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it is seasonal and systematic, not random. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I presume you imply; "seasonal weight fluctuations". Snowman (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if either is less jargony than the other. Is what you propose more frequently used in the literature? If not, I'd prefer to use what the relevant sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The article currently has the jargon and then the explanation of the jargon, which seems to have an element of repetition. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how explanation is repetition. For more info on these cycles, see footnote 47 on page 285 of Cheke Hume 2008. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

On what page do Cheke and Hume point this out? And how is explanation repetition? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have thought about many of your replies, and to me it seems that you sometimes have some sort of tunnel vision that makes is difficult for you to see reviewers point of view or you are reluctant to investigate issues raised by reviewers. I provide this feedback with the hope that it will help you to have a little more insight into your stance, which you might like to think about. Your comment above seems to be a reply to this thread and the thread below, so to me it seems that you have made this page slightly more complicated and difficult to follow by commenting on two topics of discussion in one reply. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you noticed that I generally implement the suggestions of other reviewers much faster than yours? That is for reasons I have already outlined. You make some good, relevant suggestions, but bury them in dozens of puzzling suggestions that are not based on FA criteria, you never give those up in spite of counter arguments, and this makes people frustrated and confused. I know it isn't just me, I've seen other reviews you've made that had the same problem, for example this[16] one, where you completely misinterpret the GA criteria (is Abuwtiyuw comprehensive?), and basically mislead the reviewer into failing a GA, without allowing the nominator to address the issues raised prior to this. And it was subsequently listed[17] in spite of your protests, because they were ill-founded. You really need to focus on which suggestions are actually relevant to FA criteria, and then make other suggestions optional. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The issues I raise are always within the scope of FA criteria unless I add that it might not be relevant to the FA criteria. I always raise issues that I think are likely to lead to an improvement in the article. I also attempt to write good edit summaries to show new Wikipedians what is happening and I generally try to help other Wikipedians at all levels. I raise issues in FA discussions and I do not always know where the discussion will go and this has lead to some fascinating additions to articles to fix omissions relevant to FA status. I have commented on many FA articles and I generally find that creative erudite editors tend to run with ideas once I have raised a topic. On-the-other-hand, a minority of the issues that I raise are due to my lack of understanding of something, that I did not follow in the article, and do not lead to an improvement. I think that I tend to think of the "big picture" and I suspect that I may have insights that many Wikipedians do not have, because of my science background. I often check sources where I think something sounds odd. Nominators cannot choose reviewers. Snowman (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your position, all I'm saying is that you must accept if every minor demand isn't met, because some issues are simply subjective. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is no perfect article and there are many correct ways of writing about the same information. However, a Wiki article may have lots of things that are wrong, badly written, or not good enough. I note your strategy of taking up other reviewers suggestions much faster than mine, and I am wondering if this is subjective or not. Snowman (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course my decision is subjective. But so are yours. Either way, I think we've gotten pretty far in covering your demands. And I implement all your suggestions as fast as those of any others when I find them usable. Just not when they seem arbitrary. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I can not translate Dubois's original books from French to English; however, Check & Hume point out that there are errors in the translation of Dubois's book by Caption Oliver. I think that a more accurate translation of Dubois's quote is; "These birds are so-called solitaires because they are always found alone. They are as big as a goose and their plumage is white, with black tips to the wings and the tail. The tail has some feathers resembling an ostrich. They have a long neck and a beak shaped like the wood-cocks but larger. Their legs and feet are like those of the turkey. This bird is caught by running after it, as it flies very little. It is the best game of the island." See Check & Hume and Dodo-solitaire. I think that the errors in Oliver's translation should not be transcribed into the quotes in the Wiki article. The changes would relate to its flight and the description of its legs with a likeness to a Turkey or Turkey-chick so I think that these are rather important. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is explained on page 71 of Cheke and Hume 2004. It is very easy to find by searching for Turkey. It might not be the first time Turkey features on the page, but it is easy to find even without being spoon fed the page number. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please cut out the "spoonfeeding" prattle, it is leading nowhere. I fail to see what their comment has to do with the turkey issue, and they only mention a single error, and one ambiguity: "The last sentence is wrongly translated, the original reads “cet oiseau se prend à la course”, meaning “this bird is taken [i.e. captured] by running after it” (as in hare-coursing). Dubois’ “bécasse” has always been translated into English as woodcock (Scolopax rusticola), but oystercatcher (“becasse de mer”, Haematopus ostralegus) is an equally probable gloss; both birds have long straight bills, but the oystercatcher’s is more robust." Therefore, I will add Cheke and Hume's interpretation in the article, not in the translation. We should not meddle with actual sourced content, only comment on it and put it in proper context. FunkMonk (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that an FA article can not have a quote that is an incorrect English translation of the French original. I think that this could have been sorted out earlier, but for your strategy of taking up other reviewers suggestions much faster than mine. Snowman (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia is about verification, not truth. The quotes are "verified" and part of the established literature, but a home made translation is not. Therefore, explaining the quotes and their inaccuracies can only be done based on already published material, we are not allowed to interpret them ourselves. That's wikipedia policy. Things would be different if we were writing a book, original research would be allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There may be a less concrete and more creative way of looking for a solution to this problem, and at the same time keeping to the principals of the Wiki. It is verified truth that Oliver's translation of the quote contains errors. Oliver's did his translation over 200 years after the original French was published, so I am wondering how important Oliver's translations is or is not. I do not see why the Wiki article needs an incorrect translation and clearly parts of Oliver's translation have been doubted in the literature. I might be wrong, but I do not see anything wrong with a Wikipedian translating the old French text and providing an English version of the quote hopefully without errors. Wikipedians can extract information from all sorts of sources,. I understand that the Wiki does have a translating service, so I would much rather ask a person who can translate French to English about language issues. I have started en-Wiki articles by translating foreign language versions, so language translation by Wikipedians is not out-of-bounds here. I note your strategy of taking up other reviewers suggestions much faster than mine, so I plan to see if I can find out more about language translation on the Wiki myself, when I have some time perhaps within a few days. Snowman (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, the translation only has one single downright error (caught by running instead of the bird itself running). The other issue (identity of "becasse") is a matter of interpretation, so there's not really anything we can change it to, other than noting it in the article text. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No. There is also different interpretation leading to "Turkey" or "Turkey-chick". Snowman (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Only if it is described as a problem in secondary sources. This is Wikipedia, not our original research book. You rightly removed my caption that said the white Solitaire image was based on Frohawk's Rodrigues Solitaire. It clearly is, but no sources actually state this, so it does not belong here, no matter how obvious it is. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.[18] FunkMonk (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

There are apparently two translation errors in the Oliver translation of the Dubois quote, which I think is a problem for FA status. There are a number of Wikipedians, who have volunteered for translation work. Of course, I am interested in Wikipedia:Translators_available#French-to-English. I have User TrailerTrack, a native French speakers, about the Dobois quote. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the important points about verification. Anyhow, be sure to make the translator read this discussion so he can realise what the problem is. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Wikipedians can extract and rearrange information from all sorts of reliable sources, even if it is in a different language. Wikipedians can even extract information from maps, and say that town A is y miles from town B, the in-line source being a map. Snowman (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, since you've already made the arrangement, it'll be interesting to see what we get from it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have left a message with User TrailerTrack to say that translation assistance in no longer needed. Snowman (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: future research directions; for example, research that could elucidate taxonomy and evolution. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, no sources mention this, so how could we? FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If there are too many gaps in the published literature about a topic, then it might not be possible to write an FA article about the topic. Snowman (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There are no gaps, since practically all literature with original research that exists on the subject is cited here. Since when did a FAC have to take hypothetical future literature into account? This is another one of those non-FAC demands that you need to give up if they cannot be met. And to show how random and unpredictable such future studies are, a little anecdote: I asked the lead author of this[19] paper if there would be a future study on a related species. He replied that they only did that study because they happened to have some bones lying around in the lab by chance, and when they requested bones of the related species, they were turned down. So they have no plans on examining the related species. FunkMonk (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

See 3c at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. I wonder if the article is ineligible for featured article status owing gaps in knowledge leading to inherent instability of the article. Snowman (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lol, are you serious? Instability!? There are only three or four people who conduct research on this bird today (this original research is published with about ten year intervals), and they all agree, how can it be "unstable"? As I said earlier, you have some good suggestions, and then you have some very dubious ones, could you please separate the ones rooted in actual FA criteria from the made up ones? FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• The external link to the video "The Dodo – The merging of myth and reality" has been a dead link on my system for several days. If this is a dead link, then should it be removed or fixed? Has the url changed? Snowman (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's annoying. Perhaps it is only temporary? If it doesn't work, it is useless. I'll wait and see what happens. FunkMonk (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Provisional impression (1). I think that this article has some interesting and well presented parts. It also has some parts that are complicated, which I struggle to follow, partly because there are so many facets, names, and drawings in the history of its taxonomy. I am finding this article difficult to evaluate. For me, slightly different versions of text translated from foreign language sources tend to add the the difficulty in evaluating this article. I wonder if anything can be done to make the article easier to read, perhaps by copy-editing the language, re-organising subsections, or adding extra subheadings. If all the images are kept in the article, I wonder if double images would help organise the two ibis photographs and also the two similar Dodo paintings. Is my provisional impression flawed, because of my limitations and idiosyncrasies, or do others share any aspects of my point of view? Snowman (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, the taxonomic history of the bird is complicated and hard to follow, there's not much we can do about that. As the 2006 book you linked to demonstrates, even modern, professional writers get it utterly wrong. If most details are to be presented and not just glossed over, it inevitably gets convoluted and complex. And even then, there are many details I've left out, to make it even more user friendly. As for old quotes, when the majority of sources use the ones we have here, I think it would be inappropriate to tamper wit them. But if you find more readable, PD translations, sure, be my quest and replace them. And personally, I don't like "double images". The article has plenty of room, no need to stack the images so close to each other. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've now broken the taxonomy section up a bit more. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Provisional impression (2). My second provisional impression is that the article has improved. I think that the article is still rather difficult to read, but I am unsure how high the "easy to read" bar is set at in the FA criteria. Nevertheless, I think that readability and article organisation could be improved. I think that progress has been rather slow, and I have yet to raise the possible omission of the scientific culture of the 18th and 19th centuries (when new species were created on little evidence by today's standards) and also the possible omission of the apparent rivalry between some of the personalities involved with the early writings on Dodos. The relevance of both these possible omissions were explained by expert J Hume in his video interview, which is listed in the "External links" section (now a dead link on my system). I think that including these omissions would make the story somewhat more understandable and complete. One of the quotes in the article apparently contains two translation errors and I am hoping that a bilingual French and English speaker will help out. There seems to be a lot of gaps in the science, many controversies, and many inconsistencies in the literature, which all increase the complexity of writing and reviewing this article, which must be based on Wiki principals. Gaps in modern science include missing details of the evolution of this ibis and a heading on evolution is notably absent from the article on this island species. Perhaps, in few years time the evolution of the ibises will have been illuminated by DNA research and other scientific advances will add more understanding to the science and story of this ibis. Snowman (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

These are some of your more interesting suggestions, why have you not mentioned them before? I'll see what I can do. As for the rivalry, Hume overstates it a bit in that interview (which I added), since Alfred Newton neither made the connection between the paintings and the solitaire himself, or coined any of the scientific names of the species. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, could you list what other unaddressed suggestions you have here? Then we can get this over with. FunkMonk (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what might turn up. Snowman (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've now added something about the 1869 Newton paper, which is actually a key event in this history, which I had wrongly summarised, instead of underlined. Some of the info about the paintings has also been rearranged and rewritten, and may need copyediting. As for evolution, the only info I could find was what can be seen in the beginning of the behaviour section. Once genetic studies are published, it will be easy to incorporate. It appears to me that all your concerns have been addressed, apart form the "fat cycle" issue, the faunal list (which was not a problem in four other FACs), and the translation issue. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Your recent edits appear to have changed a number of things. I have not got time to look today, but I hope to read it again soon. Snowman (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Despite recent changes, I think that taken as a whole the article is unnecessarily difficult to read in places, but I say this without knowing exactly how high the "easy to read" bar is set at for Wiki articles. To me the introduction seems to be jumpy, partly because it is not in a logical chronological sequence. Perhaps, the general organisation and headings of the article could be improved as well. What about separating the red herring of the white dodo as much as possible into its own sections in the main text of the article and it own paragraph in the introduction? Snowman (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

See, my concern is quite the opposite, that we are dumbing down the article too much. I think we're pretty close to a compromise between both extremes. And there is no sense in separating the dodo stuff from the taxonomy section, more than what the article already does. There's a reason why all sources treat it this way. Wikipedia should reflect the published sources, not make up its own structure and chronology, if it isn't obviously and objectively an improvement. And it certainly isn't in this case. As for the intro, what is the problem exactly? FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the Wiki article makes up its own chronology. The Wiki article can rearrange data from reliable sources, so the Wiki article need not follow the structure of publications. I am concerned that the introduction will put off readers. It what way do all sources present it? Snowman (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems most people are not really that confused by it. And again, the taxonomic history is confusing, and most of the literature is confusing, so I'm more concerned about dumbing it down to an extend where it doesn't really reflect the published sources anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• "marooned Huguenot François Leguat"; three blue links is a row. Difficult to immediately see which wikilink is which. Snowman (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Split up, how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Now fixed. Are there any more like that? Snowman (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Provisional impression (3). I suggest that article is not ready for FA status at this juncture. As far as I can see, I have been the only viewer checking sources and I have found a number of errors and ambiguities after checking a few sources that interest me and reading other works. Most of these issues have been corrected by my own edits or resulting from discussion (above), while some are the topic of continuing discussion; nevertheless, I would recommend that sources are checked more systematically, because I think that it is likely that errors and ambiguities remain in the article. A theme on artwork (including clutter) started early in the discussion, but has not been resolved, as far as I am aware. I think that the article is difficult to read compounded by long sections and images that are put in illogical places. I think that this island species with poor flying ability needs a better account of its evolution. As far as I am aware, the introduction includes a misleading line failing to acknowledge an old classification of the Dididae as a family within the order of pigeons. One of the quotes has translation errors arising when it was translated from French to English by Oliver. Progress has been made, but it has been slow. The nominator has replied with "Lol, are you serious? ", "Have you noticed that I generally implement the suggestions of other reviewers much faster than yours?", and asks lots of questions. I am pessimistic about further progress. Snowman (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

1- You've consistently failed to show what the errors you keep mentioning are. Until you do, that argument can be disregarded. 2- The "theme on artwork" and "long sections" is subjective, and your opinion against mine. Therefore, your suggestion is rejected. 3 - Raphinae IS dididae. It is a junior synonym, which was used by some authors simultaneously with others using raphine, simply because they liked the name "Didus" more, but they were well aware it referred to the same thing. 4 - The translation issue should not be changed by making original research interpretations. Request for a new translation is rejected, but Strickland's is implemented instead, to get rid of the word "chick". You have not mentioned other errors. 5 - I say "are you serious" and "I dont want to implement your suggestion" when they are downright baffling, and not an objective improvement. That is my right, as the writer of the article. What you need to do is realise that unless one of your suggestions is straight from the FA criteria, or is mentioned by other reviewers, and is as arbitrary as many of your suggestions, I can take it or leave it as I please. What you like has no bearing on FA status, unless it is actually rooted in FA critera. You need to let such issues go. FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Provisional impression (4). I suggest that article is not ready for FA status at this juncture. I think that all significant problems should be sorted out prior to promotion to FA status. As far as I am aware, I am the only reviewer to have done spot checking on extraction of information from sources. I think that it would be particularly unwise to give this article recognition with FA status, because I think that it contains unbalanced criticism of a living author. Also, I think that the complexity of the date of the origin of the volcanic island of Rogregues is not adequately explained or sourced, and I note that the traditional age for the island of about 1.5 million years does not feature in the Wiki article. There have been some recent improvements in the article notably in the selection and logical positioning of images. Also, there has been the correction of an error on the old classification of the Dodo-like birds with an associated fix in the introduction. Nevertheless, I am becoming more pessimistic about promotion to FA status, because of slow progress with significant issues, and I am beginning to think that the article may not reach FA status at this nomination. I note that on 12 March 2012 the article will have been an FA candidate for two calendar months. Time marches. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

All issues that are relevant to the FAC criteria have long been solved. What remains is that Snowman realises his own personal preferences, as well as suggestions based on misconceptions and outdated literature, have no relevance to the FA process. Everything I add or comply with from this point is simply to be nice to Snowman. I think we need some fresh eyes to look at the article, because this review is going way out of hand. Snowman should not elevate his personal opinions to FAC criterion status. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest that article is not ready for promotion to FA status at this juncture. The article has been an FA candidate for two colander months exactly today. Numerous improvements have been made, but progress seems to have been rather slow at times. I would not expect any FA to be a perfect article, nevertheless, I think that this article retains significant problems that would need amendments prior to promotion to FA status. My review is not complete, because I think more sources need checking; nevertheless, it is time for me to move on. Snowman (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You're getting the cause and effect wrong. The only reason this has taken so long is because you keep making silly proposals that are not based on FA criteria, but on your own eccentric ideas and misconceptions. If you want to add outdated info as fact, as well as original research, it won't happen on my guard, and hopefully not on anyone else's. Many of your suggestions (that were based on your own misunderstanding of the sources, and apparent skimming of the article) were hardly even worthy of comment, yet I knew from experience that you would never give them up, so I addressed them just to keep this going, and to be nice. You complain about length, but I've demonstrated earlier that the longest spanning of my FACs are the ones you've contributed to, funnily enough, so just perhaps you might be the problem yourself. The "issues" you mention are extremely minor, subjective quibbles, which have squat to do with FA criteria. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by Casliber

Right, I will read through now and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be simpler and less misleading to remove "of the Réunion Solitaire" from the caption of the taxobox illustration (?)

Hi, I explained this to Snowman above, not sure if you saw it, or what you think about the explanation. Schlegel did now know of an ibis, he classified the bird as a species of Dodo in the same article the sketch is from, so retroactively labellingit as the ibis would be kind of misleading, wouldn't it? But I've circumvented the problem by saying "the bird" instead of either. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The idea that the solitaire and the subfossil ibis are identical has only met limited dissent - "met with limited dissent"

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree that "seasonal fat-cycles" needs some extra linking, explaining or something in the lead. I will think about this one and see what I can come up with.

I have not found any usable articles, so I'm not sure what I should link to. Any ideas? FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether the royal menagerie is the one listed at Subsidiary structures of the Palace of Versailles and hence deserviing of a link to the appropriate section.

Possibly, I'll link it. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary accounts described the "Solitaire" as having white and grey plumage merging into yellow, black wing tips and tail feathers - I think I'd say "Reunion Ibis" here, or just "the species".

Alright, I think "species" would be the least misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I am musing on this, but I think it might go better if we used its current name in all but a historical bit - e.g. I'd use the current name in Behaviour and ecology and elsewhere, and only use "Solitaire" when explaining why that term was used.

The problem is, that most of the behaviour and description section also refers to the historical accounts. But "this species" and "this bird" may be a good alternative. I'll add that. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Overall, looks alright otherwise, but the name issue can be done a bit clearer I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I think I am happy now with how the name(s) are used in the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

One final quibble - in the last para, you have two statements on when the species vanished - in the first and last sentences. It would be good to somehow amalgamate them as it reads a bit funnily otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Rephrased. FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite what I had in mind but I agree it does read better, so ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So to summarise, I cautiously support on comprehensiveness and prose at this point. I am not seeing any deal-breakers in prose left, I think the use of direct quotes in quote boxes makes the subject alot more engaging to the general reader and I strongly suspect the sources have been investigated thoroughly. I feel the use of "solitaire" has been confined to the area of hte text it is germane to and hopefully is less confusing for the general reader. As a minor formatting issue, it is good to align all refs - so all reference titles should either be in Title Case or sentence case (just choose one and align - given there are German ones Title Case might be better...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, as for case, I was under the impression that books were title case, and scientific articles were not? FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The feedback I've got from Sasata previously is that they should all be the same...so I have generally aligned them as title case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sasata does it as FunkMonk suggests- see his latest FA. J Milburn (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What's important is that they are consistent, not necessarily the same. Like J Milburn points out, I use title case for books and sentence case for articles (but title case for the name of the journal, and sentence case for chapters in books) because that seems logical to me. There shouldn't be any problem with someone using title case for both books and journal article titles either. Sasata (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Aha. Does what I've used here seem sensible to you? FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's largely sensible. If I were nitpicking the formatting, I might suggest the following trivialities...

• the "a" after the colon in ref#4 should be capitalized
• the "official title" (i.e. the Worldcat entry obtained from clicking the isbn) of ref#7 doesn't include ": A synopsis on the fossil Rallidae" and could be left out without hindering anyone's ability to find this source
• ref#9 is available online here, so one might include a courtesy link; also, if this proceedings publication has an editor(s), their names are typically included in the citation
• if the translated title is included in ref#14, for consistency it should be included with the other foreign language titles as well
• I think the "To" in the title of ref#16 should be lower case (there's no set rule about this; see the options at Title_case#Headings_and_publication_titles and be consistent throughout)

… but I'm not, so feel free to ignore :-) Sasata (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Heheh, cool, I'll work on it anyway. As for the "fossil Rallidae" title, that's the name of the relevant chapter within the book, but maybe the page numbers are enough? FunkMonk (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, in that case give the chapter title in the "chapter=" parameter of cite book. Sasata (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've implemented the above suggestions, apart form the link, which I couldn't get to work for some reason... FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reformatted the reference a smidge and added a link to where the PDF can be downloaded, which will be useful for anyone chasing up the reference- linking straight to the (very large) PDF is not ideal. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thumbs up! FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I think that relatively few of the sources have been checked for accurate extraction of content to the article. I have checked a few sources and found several errors where the article said something different to the in-line reference. The topic is complex and errors in the article are still turning up from time to time. Snowman (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Then tell us what those errors are, instead of this continuous, useless hand-waving. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• A error I recently found was that the old Dididae taxonomy was wrong in the article (now fixed). Snowman (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments

Leaving aside the excessive use of quote boxes I've mentioned above, I'm inclined to promote this as it stands given the time it's been open and the evident support. I note some recent concerns from Snowman re. the lead, but having gone through it myself I see no readability issues, just scope for a small tweak/trim that I've already executed. If there is anything else that really needs to be resolved before promotion, pls speak now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are French to English translation issues for the quote from the Debois book. I think that it is preferable that all issues are sorted out prior to awarding FA status. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a single inconsistency, which is "turkey chick" versus just "turkey". That can't be a serious issue, and no sources mention it as a problem. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be more accurate than the sources, they are supposed to reflect the sources. Verifiability, not truth.[20] FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It is translated as "turkey" by some. The quote actually contains two translation problems, and it need not show any translation problems. The Oliver translation contains two problems, and there is no need to re-iterate errors of translation of the original Dubois work. Surely the quote should be what Dubois had written translated without errors. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

So what are the other issues? Two issues are dealt with by paraphrasing a source that deals with them. We shouldn't change historically significant translations, since they have had quite an impact on the understanding of the bird. If people thought it had a woodcock's beak for 150 years because of an unclear translation, this needs to be mentioned in the text. But we sure shouldn't change the translation itself. That is simply not what we're supposed to do here, no original research. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The original book was published hundreds of years before the translation. The original book is more significant that its translation, especially if the aim of using quotes is to paint a picture of contemporaneous observations of the bird in life. Snowman (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No, because the great, great majority of literature containing studies and interpretations about the bird are in English, and largely based on these translations. The translations themselves have had an impact on how the bird was subsequently understood and classified. Some authors questioned the accuracy of the translations, and even the original text itself, but that should be mentioned in the article, we should not "correct" an important historical text and retroactively change its context. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are correct about the historical importance of Oliver's translation with its mistakes, then perhaps it should be shown alongside a correct translation of the Dubois's important observations; however, I suspect that you are exaggerating the importance of Oliver's translation made hundreds of years after the Dubois's original French version and I think that only a correct translation need be quoted in the article. I have no doubt that Dubois' observations should be translated correctly when quoted. Snowman (talk)

I'm stressing the importance of his mistakes and inaccuracies, which had an impact on how the beak and flight ability was perceived. These are already dealt with in the text. so we don't need two separate translations. What you're proposing is bordering on original research. It is besides the point whether we can crate a more "correct" translation, because what we should do is reflect the sources, not make our own judgements. And again, if we wanted to be more correct than the sources, we should point out that Frohawk's second image is based on a Rodrigues Solitaire. But we shouldn't, know why? Because it's original research, whether it's true or not it irrelevant, as this info cannot be found in the sources. I recommend you read up on "verifiability, not truth"[21], before commenting further on this issue. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I would welcome the opinion of a bilingual French and English speaking person. As far as I am aware, translations are permitted on the Wiki (the foreign language being the source). Snowman (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It is irrelevant. Dubois' original French text is open to interpretation, and this is what the sources say. "Bécasse" can mean more than one kind of bird. It doesn't matter if you get a professor in French to do a new translation, the word will remain ambiguous forever, because we will never know what Dubois actually meant. The rest of the issues, "turkey chick" and "betakes itself to running" are minor issues, the former is ambiguous, and the latter is explained in the text. Translations are allowed, yes, but interpretations are not. Some words are just too ambiguous and archaic for a direct, modern translation here, and any choice will be subjective. You really need to let this go, I will not implement original research. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Strickland had the quote translated in 1848 and he uses "turkey" and not "turkey-chick"; see page 59 of his book. What exactly is the historical importance of Oliver's 1897 translation with errors? Snowman (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Then we use Strickland's translation. But no original research. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There were two work-arounds that I could think of without asking a translator Wikipedian, and the use of Strickland's translation (or the translation in Strickland's book) is the easiest. I have looked for acknowledgement of translation work in Strickland's book, but I could not find anything. Please note that Check and Hume acknowledge Dutch translation work at the end of at least one of their works, but I recall thinking that it is not relevant for this article. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the chosen solution is better within the realm of a Wikipedia article. If it had been a book, we could add as much original speculation as we wanted, and a new "improved" translation would be in order. But Wikipedia is not the place for such. 14:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why leave aside the excessive use of quote boxes? Surely, this is the time to deal with quote boxes and page clutter. Also, I have suggested using double images to tidy up the clutter a little. Page clutter is an unresolved issue mentioned by three reviewers. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Because the boxes have not been a problem in four previous FACs. Why now? And where is this clutter exactly? As for double images, how would that minimise clutter? I see no white space. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It is an issue here, and i think that it should be resolved prior to awarding FA status. I recall some agreement that there were too many quotes in a previous FA and some were removed. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You're mixing up the issues. The amount of quotes is unrelated to the issue of boxes. No one has complained about the amount of quotes here. And you have not complained about the boxes yourself, as far as I recall. FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I see it, there are two issues. There are many quote boxes and page clutter. Quote boxes and images both contribute to page clutter. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Clutter in which way? FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The art work could be improved. In this sense I am using "art work" to indicate the layout of the article and position and quantity of quotes and images. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's just fine. I've seen horrible layout in recent FAs, and no one has pointed out any specific places where "clutter" occurs, or what this "clutter" even is. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have difficulty in understanding reviewers? I think that it is untidy that there are two images of extant ibises, which both are to illustrate close living relatives. I think that these could be combined in a double image. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

See, this is where we step from the realm of FAC criteria into the realm of subjective opinion and taste: I disagree, and that's just how it is. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that three reviewers have mentioned "clutter". Snowman (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Sandy's specific issue was fixed ages ago, and that no one else has pointed out anything specific. And you only started talking about it after the delegate commented, so it doesn't seem to have been much of a concern for you until then. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggested using double images, solely because I thought using one or two would improve presentation. Snowman (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

But that has absolutely nothing to do with clutter. If we had a lack of room, and a lot of white space, I could understand you. But as is, I really don't see the problem. They are the only images that would be appropriate under the biology sections. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Although, I am not sure where the "easy-to-read" bar is set, I think that improving the readability of the main text of the article is potentially actionable. There are some long complicated sections. Perhaps, article organisation could be improved. Snowman (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're the only one who keeps pushing the issue, so please present some suggestions. FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I aim to drive improvements when I see problems. Do you have any idea where the article could be difficult to read? Snowman (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that's why I'm asking you. FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where to pitch my reply, so can you say where you think there could be parts that are difficult to read? Snowman (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

But I'm not the one still claiming there are such parts left, so why should I? FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In this earlier edit you stated; "The thing is, the taxonomic history of the bird is complicated and hard to follow, there's not much we can do about that." and "... it inevitably gets convoluted and complex." I thought that you might have something to share about convoluted and complex parts of the text. Snowman (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I said the taxonomic history is complex. If the subject is complex, the article has to be complex. It can not be much more watered down than it already is. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

To which parts of the article were you referring as being convoluted or complex. Surely, these parts might be difficult for readers to understand? Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If the taxonomic history of the animal is complex, I'm pretty sure the text that deals with this is/has to be complex too. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that this complex topic should be supported by clearer page organisation. Snowman (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

And now we're discussing in circles again. If you think something specific is in need of reorganisation, point out where this is. And no, this is not "spoon-feeding", you're simply being vaguer than mist. FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I generally find that nominators have a creative spark and can run with ideas. This issue is not resolved. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not "resolved" because you refuse to give constructive criticism instead of vague hand-waving. If you think something is unclear, you need to show wjere it is, or else your request will be ignored. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I do not see the point of the article showing four images of the white dodo, because the ibis is not a white dodo and some of the images of the white dodo are rather similar and apparently all are derived from the same painting. I think that too many images of the white dodo give the wrong emphasis about the ibis. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

We've already discussed this, and I've explained it several times above. FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll explain it in detail, for the benefit of the audience. The Withoos and Holsteyn images are essential because they, along with Bontekoe's writings, is what created the white Réunion Dodo myth in the first place. Frohawk's white Dodo image is essential in showing how accepted the idea was in the early 20th century and onwards. The second Frohawk image is important in showing that, after all, there was some doubt about whether it was a correct identity or not for this bird. Last Dodo image, the one all recent literature refers to when explaining the older images, is essential for that very reason. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are there two images of a white dodo in the "recent classification" section? I think that these images should not be shown in this section, because they are nothing to do with modern classification. I think that these misplaced images show poor article organisation. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Or rather that you haven't read the accompanying text. The Savery image is discussed at length in that section, so removing it from there would not make sense. As for Frohawk's image, it is in the beginning of the section, which starts with the fact that only few doubted its validity. I will add that it was the orthodox view. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see why the white dodo should be discussed in detail nor illustrated in a section with a title of "Recent classification". I think that the headings are confusing and the sections are too long. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Uh, well, because it is part of the reason why the Dodo identity can be discounted. The recent (2000s) discovery of that painting shows the Withoos and Holsteyn images were not based on a live bird from Réunion. Therefore it belongs under recent classification. Are you in all seriousness suggesting that an image (and attached interpretations) that was unknown until a few years ago should be discussed under "early classification"? Again, it makes it seem as if you haven't even read the section to begin with. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that how the classification of the white dodo lost its credibility and became a myth should be discussed predominantly with the old classification. I think that the sections are too long and a lot could be done to improve page organisation. Snowman (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Again, many of your suggestions are not rooted in actual FA criteria, but in your own personal tastes. If I disregard such suggestions, that's just how it is, and you have to accept it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, readability, page organisation, and all aspects of presentation (including art-work) are all relevant in the FA criterion. Snowman (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course. But many of your exact suggestions are not part of the criteria. They're your personal, arbitrary preferences. You think something is too long. You think something should be a "double image". These are optional features that are not required. If I agree, I will implement it. If not, I won't. It's rather simple. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This issue is not resolved. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is resolved. The removal of historically relevant images has been rejected by me, and the text is fine where it is. Case closed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved, the article now has a better range of images. Snowman (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Problem with introduction. This book called Island Life by Alfred Russel Wallace says about the Reunion Solitaire; "These birds constitute a distinct family, Dididae, allied to the pigeons but very isolated." The introduction to the article says; "... the Réunion Solitaire was long believed to be a member of the pigeon subfamily Raphinae.", but the famous book appears to show that the article introduction is an oversimplification, because the introduction disregards an old classification of the Reunion Solitaire classified as being in the family Dididae, presumably in the order Columbiformes (pigeons), but not in the family Columbidae. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, are you serious? You constantly complain about long, complex taxonomy, and now you want to add even more? What's the point? "Dididae" itself is an obsolete name, a junior synonym of raphinae. It is not "omitted", it is simply not needed, as the senior synonym raphinae is already mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Island Life is a serious book and its author Alfred Russel Wallace was a serious scientist and I think that he was serious when he stated that the Solitaire (of Bourbon) was in the family Dididae in 1881. This is an old classification and Wallace explains that in his time Dididae was placed as a family (presumably in the order of Columbiformes), which is not the same as the modern position of the sub-family Raphinae in the family of Columbidae. I suggest that this part of the introduction is corrected by removing the error. This will shorten the text on taxonomy in the introduction and made the introduction more realistic and more readable. I note that you started your comment with "Lol, are you serious?", so I have become pessimistic about more progress. Snowman (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, they are synonyms. But I sense you will on beat this dead horse for the rest of our life, so I'll change it, just to make our lives easier. And no, it wasn't Wallace who proposed this classification, it was classified as such the moment it was considered a Dodo. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not know how anyone could think that I said the it was Wallaces idea. I just said that Wallace stated it. I think that the article could not ignore Wallace's early account of taxonomy. Wallace wrote about Dididae as a pigeon family, which is entirely different to what the article said about a synonym being a pigeon sub-family. Clearly,the taxonomic ranking has been altered. Snowman (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That is because columbidae is regarded as a family, don't know when that view became accepted. In any case, I've now added the outdated taxonomy expressed by Rothschild. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would recommend more spot checking of sources. The topic is complex and errors are still turning up. As far as I am aware, I have been the only reviewer to spot check sources, but I have not spot checked many. I have corrected a few parts of the article by checking a few sources. Also, I have started discussions on problem issues (above) and there turned out to be an error where the article did not reflect the in-line reference accurately or was not consistent with a different reliable source. I am somewhat pessimistic about progress here, because of the slow progress and because of the large volume of checking that would need doing. Snowman (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Explain. What errors? In any case, be my guest and spot check the hell out of it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A error I recently found was that the old Dididae taxonomy was wrong in the article (now fixed). Snowman (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• The external link to the video "The Dodo – The merging of myth and reality" is a dead link. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But we don't know if it will stay that way. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I commented on this dead link above on 18 February 2013. I think that it is about time it is removed. Snowman (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. No big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: a section on evolution. Island life. Chapter XIX by Wallace would be a useful source to expand information already in the article. Snowman (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No, a 1885 book is not appropriate to explain modern theories. And there is no evolution section because nothing is known about its evolution apart form what is already in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wallace was rather good on the topic of evolution. I think that he explained island speciation rather well with reference to what he called the Solitaire (of Bourbon). Snowman (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

But how can it be relevant when explaining the evolution of the ibis, which he was not even aware existed? At most, it can be mentioned under early interpretations. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wallace knew that there was a flightless bird on Reunion. He suggested a mechanism by which it evolved into a flightless bird, which depended on an environment without hostile animals. It does not matter if he thought it was an Elephant Bird or Kiwi, the key idea is that he suggested how a flighted bird might have evolved into a flightless bird specifically on Reunion, and that is one of the pieces missing from the article. Wallace was rather good at evolution. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

But if you read the article, you would know that it probably wasn't even flightless after all. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that early reports of the flying ability of the ibis vary, without re-reading the article. I suspect that this is not certain, because the reports are old and unscientific. Yes, Wallace said that the birds were totally flightless. Nevertheless, the article could still use his explanation of evolution of flightless birds (with specific reference to Reunion) and then add that the ibis may not have been as flightiness as Wallace assumed. Snowman (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No reports mention it was flightless, but one mentions it had difficulty flying. This, combined with the belief that it was a Dodo, is what created the myth that it was completely flightless. So a discussion of how flightiness evolves isn't relevant here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that I have been inadvertently deceived by the number of illustrations in the article all with tiny wings and talk of it feeding-up and getting too fat to fly. I now see that using Wallace's explanation in the article is more problematic than I first thought, if the bird was flighted. Snowman (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

... but John Tatton said; "... and so short winged, that they cannot fly, ...". Snowman (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That's right. But what that means is hard to say. Remember also that the Broad-billed Parrot was long considered flightless and short winged for the same reason, which has been doubted in later years. And what recent sources say (if there is consensus) trumps older, flawed literature. FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

From 2004. Hume and Check. The white dodo of Réunion Island: unravelling a scientific and historical myth. "This bird roughly matches the earliest report: Tatton’s account in 1613 of an unnamed “great fowl the bigness of a turkie, very fat, and so short-winged that they cannot flie, beeing white." They say Tattow's account "roughly matches", which tends to complement Tatton's account. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"Complement" is reading too much into it. What it actually says is that itis probably the same bird, nothing else. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The bird does not fly. Snowman (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Who knows if he just never saw it fly? If it flew with reluctance, as other witnesses said, he might just not have been lucky. The point is, we can never be sure about these old accounts. That's also why it's important to present them unaltered in the article, because any interpretation is just that: interpretation, nothing more. FunkMonk (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• The book Extinct Birds by Rothschild is on Wikisourse. Is it better to put Wikisourse in the citation than other external sites? I do not know the answer. I do not know if it is relevant to FA criteria or not. I note that Wikisourse is used in the citation "Wallace, Alfred Russel (1881). Island Life . Harper and brothers. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help)" rather than Google books or somewhere else on the article on FA on Alfred Russel Wallace. Snowman (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Whatever is online and stable site goes. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess that you are correct; however, there is potential for Wikisourse to have multiple language translations. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I realise this article may need a modern restoration of this bird to become less confusing. Since such are not available for free, I will make one myself, based on the fossils and other modern restorations by Julian Hume. I may remove Frohawk's Dodo image to make room. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  That is one of the points that I was wondering about, but have not got around to listing. There is a CC image on the Extinction Website in their equivalent of an infobox. Why not use that one? Snowman (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It is non commercial and derivatives are not allowed, which is not compatible with Commons, and could only be used as fair use. But I can make a more accurate image myself (the beak is too long and head too big[22]). I'm an animator, so drawing is my profession. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed the non-commercial aspect of the licence probably because I have not looked at the extinction website for a while. Also, I was thinking about the extinction website image of the Cuban Red Macaw, which is PD, only because it is an old image. Snowman (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's something I threw together[23], any thoughts? Based on the fossils, modern restorations, and modern species. Could be coloured. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It has a professional and presentable look about it. I think that the "knees" look too high and perhaps the legs and toes look too broad, but I have not measured the sub-fossils. Perhaps slight webbing between toes? see File:Threskiornis_aethiopicus_-London_Zoo,_England-8a.jpg. Look which way the "knees" bend; see File:Flickr - don macauley - Threskiornis aethiopicus 2.jpg. Can you draw it walking to show "knees" bending? Snowman (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the limbs are are quite robust compared to living species, but Hume restores them even more so in one of his images. As for webbing, Dubois considered them land birds, and their habitat was forests, there is some discussion of this in the article. Modern restorations show the toes unwebbed, and I believe that is the reason. I await your reply on those issues, but I will fix the knees. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Dubois says it has feet like a Turkey. See these turkeys which has slightly webbed feet;File:Meleagris_ocellata1.jpg and this one on Flickr. Also, legs should be under centre of gravity. In your first image it looks like it will fall forwards. Snowman (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

How about the legs now?[24] It is standing, not walking, so the bend isn't as evident as in those photos, but it should be clear that the ankle is directed backwards, and that the lower leg continues forwards, in a bend. As for leg robustness, you should remember the turkey comparison, which we have discussed at length, I guess it must be an indication of the thickness. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I just saw your reply, and added web and moved the legs forward:[25] FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should continue the discussion of this restoration in the paleoart review page, since it is not exactly about the FAC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Cheke, A. S.; Hume , J. P. (2004). "The white dodo of Réunion Island: unravelling a scientific and historical myth". Archives of Natural History 31 (1): 57–79. doi:10.3366/anh.2004.31.1.57+." - doi link is not working on my system. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Replaced. Not sure what happened. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Re File:Réunion Ibis.jpg. You drew it very well, but I presume that the attribution should include acknowledgement of my input. I see it as a collaboration. Snowman (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, also what sources it was based on. I have added it now, the former description was preliminary. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Resolved. Snowman (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for the input in the first place. I hope this image will be helpful in the future, because there are not many modern restorations of the bird on the Internet. I had actually thought about making a new restoration long ago, but refrained from it because I thought it would be too speculative. But I think it makes more sense now, especially because it balances the use of older images. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• "... is thought he borrowed the name from a tract which mentioned the Réunion species.[2]"; sounds vague. Snowman (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Want me to elaborate it? FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Some more clues might help. Is it referring to something Marquis Henri Duquesne wrote? Snowman (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll add some more. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Did the Marquis see the solitaire before Leguat? Snowman (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

He may have plagiarised it from Dubois, according to the paper. But I think that's going too much into detail. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• See 2004 Hume and Check. The white dodo of Réunion Island: unravelling a scientific and historical mytH. note 16. "Dubois (1674) expressly stated that the solitaire did not have a fat cycle: ..." This seems to contradict the article. Snowman (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict the article, but rather the source. It was proposed by one of the original describers, so at most, I can mention it below. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The article says it was Mourer-Chauvire who suggested fat cycles. Perhaps, his idea is more controversial than the article implies. Snowman (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"Controversial" implies "controversy". But there is no controversy. No one has yet contradicted him, or rather, no one has commented on the claim. All we can do is present the different claims. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC). Snowman (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that Dubois observations on the absence of a fat-cycle in the ibis is an omission. Snowman (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I added it before I read this. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Article size = 18 kB (2940 words) "readable prose size excluding quote boxes". An article of 15,000–30,000 characters should aim to have two or three paragraphs in the introduction, but the article has four paragraphs. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before, It's not an FA criterion. It was resolved when Chris Cunningham's suggestions for the lead were implemented. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to go against the guidelines and use four paragraphs. I have put it into three paragraphs in this version. Snowman (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, please read the old discussions. This is just beating a dead horse. The important issues with the lead have been fixed long ago, and now you're nitpicking beyond the FA criteria, so I have no obligation to act on it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that the introduction is now in three paragraphs. Snowman (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like an error(s): "Mauritius and Rodrigues, with each their flightless raphine species, are eight to ten million years old"; see Rodrigues where it says the island is 1.5 million years old. This age is also consistent with the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, which also gives an date of 1.5 mya for when the flightless pigeon of Rodrigues lost its ability to fly. Snowman (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll trust the sources over Wikipedia and a non-research page. "Finally there are sound geological reasons for believing that no dodo could have reached Réunion. Mauritius (Saddul, 1995) and Rodrigues (Giorgi and Borchiellini, 1998) are volcanic islands eight to ten million years old, whereas Réunion is at most three million years old (Montaggioni and Nativel, 1988)." FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I am puzzled why you do not check these facts for yourself. My opinion is that this needs further analysis and I would prefer to source geological data from a geology science books and not ornithology books. I have looked at two geology books on the internet; see Synthesis of Results from Drilling in the Indian Ocean. 1994. Page 94 and The Origin of Volcanic Rocks in the Oceans. 2001. page 94. I have removed the sentences with the errors, because I think they were misleading. Snowman (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The paper obviously doesn't cite ornithological papers (Saddul, 1995) (Giorgi and Borchiellini, 1998) (Montaggioni and Nativel, 1988). Did you notice the citations in the quote? They're to geography studies. Also, one of your sources is even older than the sources used by Cheke and Hume. I'll have to revert you. You also seem to be oblivious to what your own sources say. There are older and younger deposits mentioned in the last one. The oldest are consistent with what Cheke and Hume report. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Check and Hume quote one source for the age of Reunion, which is Montaggioni, L. F. and Nativel, P., 1988 La Réunion, Ile Maurice. Géologie et aperçus biologiques. Paris: Masson. page 192. They quote one source for the age of Rodriquez, which is Giorgi, L. and Borchiellini, S., 1998 Carte géologique de l’Ile Rodrigues au 1: 25000. Le schema hydrogéologique. La notice explicative. Paris: Ministère Délégué à la Cooperation et de la Francophonie & Geolab. page 28; maps. They sourced the age of Mauritius from one source, which is Saddul, 1995. Mauritius – a geomorphological analysis. Moka: Mahatma Gandhi Institute. Pp 340. Snowman (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Either way, the last source you provided does not seem to give an ultimate age for the islands, only the dates for specific deposits. That is not enough to question anything. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The later book I quoted above says that present island of Rodriquez (above the sea) was formed on an earlier submarine platform (i.e. below the sea). I have not been able to access the old sources that Check and Hume quote. Snowman (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Chapter 1 of Cheke Hume 2008 has more detail on age, and uses the same dates. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Mauritius: a geomorphological analysis 2002. Prem Saddul, Bruce Warren Nelson, Amenah Jahangeer-Chojoo. page 320. Says "Rodrigues is the smallest and geologically the youngest of the Mascarene Islands". Snowman (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In the end, we should really only use the sources that directly relate to the bird. Remember, verifiability, not truth. We're not writing a book here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that the article can also safely refer to geology references about the age of Rodrigues. Yes, it is discussed in Check and Hume. 2008. "Lost Land of the Dodo". I am not sure which page it is on, because the on-line version does not have page numbers. It might be a different part of the book that you refereed to above. They say that the generally accepted date is that Rodrigues is the youngest island at 1.5 myo. However, they think that the island is probably older than that based on its biology. Note that they use the word "probably". I think that the article does not give a balanced view giving only the older age of Rodriguez and not the generally accepted geological view. My opinion, based mainly on the discussion and debate in the book about the age of Rodrigues, is that that the article should not present the age of Rodrigues at about 8 mya as fact with support from only this book as the source. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You can't continue with the same erroneous argument. It is not "this book" that made it up, it is citing other sources. And again, it is the beginning of chapter four. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to advance the discussion. The part of the 2008 book I am referring to is chapter 1, which is were the geography of the islands is presented. The age of Rodregues is discussed at the end of chapter 1, where the authors say that the conventional view from geology is that Rodrigues island is 1.5 myo and that the discrepancy between this conventional geological age of the island and the age gauged from its biology remains to be fully resolved. I note that the Wiki article sources from an older work from 2004 by the same authors. The Wiki article presents the age of Rodregeus as about 8 mya as a fact and this it is not stated as an established fact in the 2008 book. Snowman (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I meant chapter one of Cheke Hume 2008. With reference to other works, it says Mauritius is about ten million years old, Réunion about 3, and that Rodrigues is conventionally thought to be 1.5 million years old, but that recent work suggests it is much older. I think you're the one citing outdated information. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"Suggests". From the Wiktionary; "The guidebook suggests that we visit the local cathedral". This is not the same as saying that a person did visit the cathedral. Also, "The name "hamburger" suggests that hamburgers originated from Hamburg.", and of course this does not say that the hamburgers originated from Hamburg. Please do not remove maintenance from the article tags until the problem has been sorted out. Snowman (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

But there is no problem. You have clearly added the tag in error. Look at the recent sources cited by Cheke Hume 2008, I gave you the location in the book. And I repeat "verifiability, not truth". The paragraph is verified. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that you have removed the maintenance tag, which I put in the article, but I think that this does not make it any more likely that "suggests" can ever mean "is definitely". The book presents the basic aspects of the geology in chapter 1, so when the topic is featured in chapter 4, the author may have expected the reader to have read chapter 1, where the dates of each of the island formation are discussed in detail and where it says that traditional view is that Rogregues island is 1.5 million years old (myo). Snowman (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the tag because you have put it there on questionable grounds. You have not provided a more recent source which argues for your claims. We won't use outdated sources here, unless it is in a historical context. And the word "definitely" is not used in the article, so your argument is a red herring. As for the book chapeter, doesn't matter, because itis not the book, but the 2004 paper, that is cited for the info. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Cheke and Hume have dismissed such sentiments as being mere "belief" and "hope" in the existence of a Dodo on the island.[2]". This is a comment on Errol Fuller's 2001 book Extinct Birds, but I wonder if Cheke and Hume's comment is put in appropriate context in the article. Fuller's book was originally published in 1987 and a revised edition was published in 2001. The article is using the 2001 book as the in-line references. The revised book deals with the white Dodo completely differently from the old book. The old book describes it as a white dodo-like bird that lived on Reunion; however, the new book is updated and it says that the white dodo is the most celebrated of the hypothetical species. I think this 2001 book by Fuller, a living author, should not be put in better context, if the Check and Hume's comment is going to be kept in the article. I have only got a few glimpses of Fuller's 2001 book on extinct birds and Fuller's 2002 book on the Dodo on the internet. Snowman (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a response to the Dodo book, not the Extinct Birds book, so the 1987 date is irrelevant, as the former is notthat old. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• If Check and Hume's remark is about Fuller's 2002 book, then it is totally illogical for the Fuller's view mentioned in line before the Check and Hume's remark to be sourced from the 2001 book. Snowman (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

He makes the same argument (page 385), and it is the 2001 version that is used, not the 1987 one, so I really don't see the problem. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Fuller's 2001 book on extinct birds is a revised edition of the 1987 book and there are key revisions relevant to the white dodo. As far as I can see from glimpses of the 2001 book, Fuller classifies the white dodo as a hypothetical species, which is consistent with the current evidence. I think that Fuller's point of view is not properly represented in the article and the Check and Humes apparent dismissal appears to be out-of-context to me. Why does the article not say that Fuller classifies the white Dodo as a hypothetical species in his 2001 book? Snowman (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's quite an overstatement to say that he does. In fact, he doesn't. It is in the section about hypothetical species, but so is "Leguatia gigantia", and he does not consider either species valid. What he says is only what I've writtenin the artile: that we can not be sure if the ibis survived into historic times, and that the solitaire could had been anything, even a Dodo. But then again, parsimony would suggest otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article has taken Check and Hume's remarks, but has used them out of context or has misquoted. As far as I can see, Check and Hume only dismiss the use of pictures to maintain a hope of the white dodo, and they also quote Gibbs. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is what the Check and Hume says in 2004: "Despite intensive searches in recent years (Moureret alii, 1999) no dodo-type bones have been found, but this has not prevented some authors from using the white dodo pictures to maintain a belief (Gibbs et alii, 2001) or a hope (Fuller, 2001, 2002) that there was also a dodo on Réunion." Snowman (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• This is what the Wiki article says; "British writer Errol Fuller agrees the 17th century paintings do not depict Réunion birds, but has questioned whether the ibis subfossils are necessarily connected to the solitaire accounts. He notes that no evidence indicates the extinct ibis survived until the time Europeans reached Réunion.[19] Cheke and Hume have dismissed such sentiments as being mere "belief" and "hope" in the existence of a Dodo on the island.[2]"Snowman (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Where is the "misquote" exactly? It is paraphrased. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

To me, the misquoting or where the article is not in context seems to be obvious. The article confuses what Check and Hume says about Gibbs and what they say about Fuller. The only thing that Check and Hume say about Fuller is that Fuller has used white dodo images to maintain a hope (not belief - that was from Gibbs) that there was a Dodo (colour not specified) on Reunion. Also, to me, when the article uses the phrase "these sentiments" it completely mixes up the ideas to be a poor reflection of the sources. Snowman (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There cannot be "misquote" when there is no quote to begin with. It is paraphrasis. The paper says "Despite intensive searches in recent years (Mourer et alii, 1999) no dodo-type bones have been found, but this has not prevented some authors from using the white dodo pictures to maintain a belief (Gibbs et alii, 2001) or a hope (Fuller, 2001, 2002) that there was also a dodo on Réunion" and I have summarised this in a way that hardly even a child could misunderstand it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Above I accidentally used the word "misquote" where I should have said "part of the article that does not reflect what is said in the source". Snowman (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Either way, I've demonstrated you were wrong. It's time to move on. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am correct, but I have accidentally used the word "misquoted" instead of "the article does not appropriately mirror the source". In case of any more misunderstanding, I have written the problem out in full again:

• To me, where the article is not in context seems to be obvious (see the quote from the souse and the quote from the article that I have put above). The article confuses what Check and Hume says about Gibbs and what they say about Fuller. The only thing that Check and Hume say about Fuller is that Fuller has used white dodo images to maintain a hope (not belief - that was from Gibbs) that there was a Dodo (colour not specified) on Reunion. Also, to me, when the article uses the phrase "these sentiments" it completely mixes up the ideas and the result in the article has become an a inaccurate criticism of a living author. Snowman (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• From Wiktionary; Noun parsimony. "... principle of using the least resources or explanations to solve a problem." I think that if the article is to include that one author dismisses what another author has said, then it should be fully sourced and what both authors have said is explained appropriately and with clarity. Also, the article does not say what Gibbs said about the pictures. Also, sourcing from the 2002 Fuller book is not included in the Wiki article, but Check and Hume refer to this 2002 book. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

He makes the same argument, but I've added an extra cite, so we don't have to keep discussing this for eternity. As for Gibbs, it is not implied that Fuller is the only person with such views. As for "parsimony", you've completely misunderstood what I meant: the Dodo hypothesis is the least parsimonious one, because no bones have been found. It has nothing to do with which sources the article uses. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If an author uses a brief version in his or her book, then the reader does not know what he or she would have said if the book had been written with a lot more detail. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. And it is irrelevant. Remember, Wiki articles don't give undue weit to fringe theories. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would have thought that adding the white dodo in the hypothetical species section of his 2001 book and saying that the white dodo is "most celebrated of the hypothetical species", as Fuller does, then he is communicating that the white dodo is a hypothetical species. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, Leguatia gigantea is there, which is not thought to be valid by anyone. He includes species that have historically thought to be hypothetically valid in that section, even those that are invalid today. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Presumably, the article uses the Fuller's 2001 book to follow the history of the ideas about birds. The article uses many old books, some hundreds of years old, that use the taxonomy and ideas of the time when they were published. In this case were are interested in what Fuller's 2001 book says about the white dodo and the ibis. Snowman (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

And it does say what he thinks. And it is not that the white Dodo is a hypothetical extinct species that he finds valid: that is your own, erroneous interpretation, which is not relevant to the article. And I repeat for the fourth time: by your logic, Fuller thinks Leguatia is potentially valid too, just because he discusses it in that section. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The focus is on the white dodo and the ibis here. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I repeat, you are wrong. He does not consider the white Dodo likely to be valid. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That is what I am saying. I am saying that Fuller in his 2001 book does not consider the white Dodo to be a valid species. He considers it to be a hypothetical species. This is why it seems to me to be illogical for the Wiki article to imply that Fuller believes or hopes that the white Dodo exists as a species. Snowman (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think that it would be particularity unwise if this article was to be promoted to FA status, if it contains an unbalanced criticism of a living author. Also see "Provisional impression (4)" above. Snowman (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Fuller is not a scientist, so his opinion holds less weight. Remember, "undue weight". FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What difference does that make to writing comments that are out-of-context about Fuller's work? Snowman (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What "out-of-context "? FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have transcribed a quote from the article and a quote from Check and Hume's work above and the differences are clear to me. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to me, or anyone else for that matter. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• "... but he also combined accounts about the Rodrigues Solitaire and a third bird ("Oiseau de Nazareth", now thought to be a Dodo) under the same section.": ".. under the same section." seems to be vague. Nazareth is another former island, see Nazareth Bank. I think that readers would be puzzled. I have looked at the source and it seems that the source says that Buffon may have misunderstood the journey of the Buffon's ship. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am less vague than the source itself, which simply says "under the solitaire", so it doesn't really matter what you think. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The source says that it is thought that the author must have thought that the ship went to Reunion, but he probably did not have a good idea where the ship went and in fact it did not go to Reunion. This is much clearer than the article. Snowman (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Delegate's closing comment. This FAC has been open for an exceptionally long time. The consensus is in favor of promotion and I think the later discussions can be concluded on the article's talk page. Graham Colm (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.