Wikipedia

Talk:Spix's macaw/GA1

< Talk:Spix's macaw
(Redirected from Talk:Spix's Macaw/GA1)
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Sainsf in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago186 comments7 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I shall review this. Well, I go section-wise. My preliminary comments:

  • Note: Seeing it is confuse to navigate through this crowded page, I thought it would be lots better to turn this into collapsible boxes at places. But if you have problems with this decision, I would readily remove these templates. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lead ✓ Pass edit

  • ...is a large all blue parrot, a member of the group of large Neotropical parrots known as macaws. No need of 'all', just 'blue' is needed. You should include the taxonomic details: its genus and family. Also add who first described and who named it and when.
  • It was native to the Caatinga dry forest climate of interior northeastern Brazil. Rather have this in the last para. of the lead.
It now is, except for the 'Little Blue Macaw' paragraph.Sbalfour (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • It is known as ararinha-azul (Portuguese pronunciation: [ɐɾɐˈɾĩɲaː ˈzuw], lit. "Little Blue Macaw"), in parts of the Brazilian state of Bahia. This is not relevant enough for the lead.
I have left it in. Consider the following:
-the alternate common name is "Little Blue Macaw" and that name redirects to this article. What gives the bird that name?
-the locals who know the bird call it that name
-the Brazilian government refers to the bird and its conservation project by that name and only that name
-it is not only a name, but a term of endearment, and we should not deprecate the power of an endearing name to those responsible for its legacy; they refer to it as "our little blue bird".
Sbalfour (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Update: I think tht there is no need for foreign language translations in the introduction, so I have removed it. Snowman (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Snowman, though your arguments are good, Sbalfour. But I do not want to deject you, so I suggest that, as "Taxonomy" is now long, there is no harm in making a new section "Etymology" and putting the part The genus name is derived..."blue parrot of Spix" and some of the naming confusions from "Taxonomy". Best to put ararinha-azul there.
I think this issue is settled. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • It is called 'little' ... (see for example Hyacinth Macaw) reword as It is called 'little' because of its much small size compared to other blue macawa (for example the Hyacinth Macaw).
Done.Sbalfour (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have amended this part. Snowman (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
The lead now reads: "the smallest of the blue macaws". That beggars the question, what are the others? A wiki search for 'blue macaw[s]' doesn't provide any clear answer, and the birds of Anodorhynchus, most commonly referred to as blue macaws, aren't especially closely related to this one. Also, since 'Little' is part of the bird's name, why is it called little? It's obviously a sizeable bird.this edit unsigned and without edit summary by Sbalfour on 20:25, 20 November 2012
I have changed it to "the only small blue macaw" and I have put the reference for this in the description section. I find it self explanatory about the size. A blue macaw is a macaw that is blue. This is like white cockatoo or black cockatoo. I do not think that it needs a definition. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Enlarge the lead with more details of its diet, social organisation, habitat, reproduction.
Done.Sbalfour (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
This was done, but another editor removed the additions. Now what?Sbalfour (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I presume that you are referring to my edits. In fact, I have not removed anything to do with diet, social organisation, habitat, reproduction from the introduction. Snowman (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, this issue is over. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Introduction (2) edit

  • Shall we re-consider the introduction when the rest of the article is referenced? I agree that the summary seems to be up to GA standard, but there may be some changes needed pending on progress on the rest of the article. As far as I am aware, the introduction is usually the last section to be finalised. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I have noticed one small problem, which might not necessarily be due to a problem in the introduction. "Ararinha-Azul" is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. The introduction is a general easy-to-read summary and is not supposed to present new information. Perhaps, there is some information on this yet to be added to the rest of the article. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "under the auspices"; I might be wrong, but this seems somewhat vague to me. What actually are the Brazilian government doing? Snowman (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Update: has been copyedited to "under the aegis of the Brazilian government". Snowman (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Taxonomy ✓ Pass edit

  • The first para. lacks citations. Same with the last line. Don't forget the line The species was designated...British Museum.
  • The fact in History section says that someone else described it and Wagner named it. Must be correctly and clearly mentioned as a sentence here. Continue with the classification details later.
  • The genus name is derived from ... hence the "blue parrot of Spix" Split this into two lines to avoid difficulty in understanding. One for genus, one for species name.
  • Who are Wright, Collar and Rowley? Ornithologists? Mention their identity. Write as ...Collar in 1997... and such.
  • Who are Dutton and Sick? Overall, wherever you mention the name of any researcher or someone who states a fact (like Dutton 1897) please reveal their identity or cite their work where they claim the thing.
Fixed.Sbalfour (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Just add the line The problematic morphology-based taxonomy...phylogenetic studies before the first study. This looks proper. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't remember moving it, but it looks like it is before the first of the two cited studies. So, fixed?50.136.198.73 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Description edit

  • Again, scarce citations.
  • 1–2 years write as one to two years as per MoS.
  • The birds' feet are light grey as juveniles, then become dark grey, and are almost black as adults. --> The color of the feet, initially light grey, darkens with the age.
Fixed.Sbalfour (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The mating call ... squawking noises This should be included in Behavior rather than Description.
Done.Sbalfour (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Details about its life span are in this section and so in the wrong section. Also, life span details are not referenced. Snowman (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Where do you suggest to place the lifespan details in? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't know, either. In other animal articles, I've found it various places. Say the place, or move it yourself. I can ref 28 years (Joe Blo's website, but the ref is dubious). Al Wabra (good ref) says 20-40 years, but in fact the longest lived specimen documented is 34 years; a couple of others I know about from the 80's lasted 32-33 years. Al Wabra speculates about 40 years. Their numbers for life in the wild (20-30 years) are based on the generally accepted paradigm that wild birds live 10 years less. The only documented wild bird (the last male) was >20 (but we don't know how much greater). <I think I just wrote what needs to be said, so...>Sbalfour (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I see, this is confusing matter. I suggest we remain unbiased by saying that specimens live roughly 20-30 yrs, and the longest living one was aged 34. We can not leave out a bit of original research here, so this 30 (truly, has any of these macaws reached even 35? And Al Wabra says their lifespan >35!). Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
based on published info and personal communication, no Spix has ever lived longer than 34 years, nor is there any living Spix older than 34. The current population suffers from serial inbreeding and also PDD, so lifespans aren't representative. The less we say about this, other than specific data points, the better.Sbalfour (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Fine, if this is so complicated, let us have this out of the article till this fact doesn't become clear. Do you agree, Snowman?Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • In common with many parrots, they have zygodactyl feet with two forward facing and two rearward facing toes needs citation. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
they all do (I own dozens), and various parrot articles mention it, in print and online, but actually finding a source who says they all do is problemmatic. Is it just common knowledge? All parrots are also left footed, but I didn't mention that. But it's a fact, and interesting because our own species is right-handed/footed.Sbalfour (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • This is now referenced with "13^ "Parrots". New World Encyclopedia." This is a clone of the Wiki, so this reference on not appropriate. Snowman (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I do not think that all parrots are left footed. Snowman (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
If the truth of this statement is so disputed, then why mention it at all? Just say this macaw has such feet, no need to tell about other parrots. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Update: I have removed the in-line ref to the clone of the Wiki, because it is obviously not appropriate. Snowman (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
See File:Ara ararauna -eating -Wilhelma Zoo-8-2rc.jpg. It is a picture of a parrot eating with its right foot. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
"All" was a bit broad. What I've seen is that parrots are about as left footed as people are right-handed (~90%). If I prompt a parrot by handing it something that's more conveniently grasped with its right foot, it'll do so. If left to their own devices, they use the left foot. An associate has seen some parrots that appear to be ambidextrous. The studies on left-footedness were done on Red-Tailed Black Cockatoos, and a few other species of true parrots. By observation, it generalizes to all Psittacidae and Cacatuidae, but I can't directly cite a study to say Spix are left-handed, so I won't say that. Forshaw or somebody should have noted that Psittacidae and Cacatuidae (including Spix) are overwhelmingly zygodactyl footed (I don't know any that aren't, but some probably exist). It's a quite obvious morphological feature, and we should say it, and reference it.Sbalfour (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Incidentally, the Wiki policy and explanation for not using the Wiki (or Wiki mirrors) as a source is at WP:CIRCULAR. Is it one of the definitions of a parrot that they are zygodactyl? If so, I guess that it should be easy to get a reliable reference for this. Unless you have a reliable source for Spix's Parrot being left footed, I would leave it out. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, if there is no such source firmly stating this, just cut out the former part of the sentence. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Behavior edit

  • Feeding is rarely referenced, and Reproduction is unsourced.
  • Better rename Food and Feeding section to Diet.
Done.Sbalfour (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Species names like Cnidoscolus phyllacanthus, Ziziphus joazeiro, Acacia paniculata are neither italicized nor linked.
  • Who is Yamashita?
Redone as proper reference.50.136.198.73 (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Also mentioned are Mentioned where? Rather say "Its diet also includes".
Done.50.136.198.73 (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Mention the fact about sexual maturity first in Reproduction.
Done.Sbalfour (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • In the wild, pairs mate for life after an elaborate courtship ritual, common feeding and flying Needs rewording, I can't understand what you exactly mean.
Done.Sbalfour (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have reworded once more. Of course mating occurs for life, so it is redundant. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
But mating doesn't occur for life in many birds - most finches for example mate only for a single season. Some African Weaver cocks conduct multiple nests at once. Other finches change mates between nests in the same season. The text as it stands lost the original conveyance: of course birds 'mate', i.e. copulate and in nearly all species, there is some kind of ritual behavior preceding. What's different about the parrots, and worth noting, is that 'mating' (copulation) is also the initiation of a lifetime bond. Also in parrots, the mating ritual encompasses many elaborate behaviors, including mutual preening, flying together, feeding each other, common inspection of nest sites, and careful inspection of each other. Such rituals often extend over several seasons, and the pairs do not copulate until such rituals are complete. The lifetime bonding is so strong, that at least in some species of cockatoo, if a mate is lost, the remaining bird will not take another(Forshaw).Sbalfour (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I see! I thought you meant they mate to create life. But you actually meant that this lasts a lifetime. Sorry, very sorry. Ok, I suggest you write a new sentence, after this one, saying that these bonds last for a lifetime. I don't wish anybody else misunderstands it as I did. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Write digits from one to ten in words.
Done.Sbalfour (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Please note that writing these digits in words also applies to other Wiki articles, ie Anodorhynchus. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation Fact File is used a lot in this section. Is it peer reviewed? Is it a self-publication? Is it WP:RS for the Wiki? Snowman (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Al Wabra owns 75% of such birds as there are, and all but one of the breeding pairs. They keep the International Studbook for Spix. They sponsor scientific, educational (PhD) and conservation studies. They own title to real estate for what's left of the bird's habitat in Brazil. The other conservation organizations stand in the same stead re: RS. If we want to know something about the birds today, it'll come from one of those organizations. Consider also, that it appears today that Helmut Sick didn't actually see Spix macaws in 1974 (Collar). The only confirmed observations this century were by Roth in the 80's; he saw only 5 Spix's and he was a college student! Is that authoritative? (Juniper, Yamashita and others also saw one bird in the 1990's).Sbalfour (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The source for some of the behaviour is now from the Al Wabra fact file. Another section uses a Al Wabra power point presentation. I think that it would be better to form a consensus about these source at this juncture rather than risking this source being rejected at a later stage perhaps at a FA discussion.
  • Are they self-publications? ; see WP:SELFPUBLISH, which says "... are largely not acceptable as sources". Snowman (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I am not clear if the authors have a conflict of interest or not. Is the presentation the basis of a lecture? Could the lecture have an element of self-promotion? See WP:SELFPROMOTE. Snowman (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Are they peer reviewed? Snowman (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I do not see any references in the presentation. Does this make a difference? Snowman (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The presentation comprises 32 slides. Please include slide numbers to make verification easier. Snowman (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The presentation had a lot of pictures and some slides in note format. Is this note format in the presentation a good basis for using this information in the article? Snowman (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Distribution and habitat edit

  • A few lines are still unreferenced.
  • Who is Silva?
Now properly cited.Sbalfour (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Italicize Tabebuia aurea.
  • I presume the italicized text is a quote? From where is it taken from?
I've sourced it.Sbalfour (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think using a quote template and mentioning the author would apply here, but it does look so improper. I propose you add the material of this quote - summarised and referenced, remember - and add to the text. Though why you need to add it I wonder, as you have already specified the range. I am afraid this makes the section too confusing. My rule of thumb would be to just add a few words in correspondence to this source to a concise statement about its range. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Convert template for "30 kilometers" needed.
  • Why should we have full sections telling about Caatinga and Caraibeira Woodland Galleries? People should refer to the respective articles, it is worthless to mention it here. Just summarize the role they play in the bird's habitat into the Distribution section itself.

History edit

  • Referencing problem.
  • Most of this section's part relate to the bird's naming. I suggest you take this to Taxonomy, and rename the section as "Taxonomy and naming". This would be proper placement of all details.
  • You seem to mention many researchers like Hermann here, often as citations. No, you should cite the works in which they have stated a particular thing.
I think I got them all, one way or another to proper references.Sbalfour (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Italics required for binomial names.
Fixed and moved to Taxonomy.Sbalfour (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "400 kilometers" needs convert template.
Done.Sbalfour (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Conservation and Threats edit

  • This is terribly long, and much unsourced. Needs summarizing.
  • I would suggest you to mention the threats to its existence and the most prominent conservation efforts in this section, remove 'Decline' subsection and use its details here. Rather rename the section as "Threats and conservation".
  • Still, we need references.
  • I wish you combine all these lines into some paragraphs. That would look systematic. Else I am afraid the reader may get tired looking at so many points. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am not going through this whole section's text, as I have suggested a big change in the writing.

Aviculture edit

  • Only the latter part of the middle line is unsourced. Great improvements! I suggest you put this section just after History, as it breaks the flow about Populations and Conservation things, you know.
Fixed. The middle paragraph source would reference this article, as the table clearly shows that all Spix are held by coservation organizations, and none are available for trade.Sbalfour (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I do not comment about Captive Population section as most comments are almost like the other sections. Just that Popular Culture needs references, and should not be written pointwise. IUCN Red List need not be in See also section.

Captive Population and Popular Culture are now referenced. IUCN Redlist removed from See also. Popular culture is now paragraphed instead of bulleted.Sbalfour (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Clean break edit

(I have changed this section to a level 3 heading, because I recall that it messes up the Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations list. Snowman (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC))Reply

  • This page has been extensively marked up. It's tedious to wander through to see what items still remain. Maybe the page should be archived, and the remaining items relisted on a new page. I know about the referencing, which still applies to some sections, particularly the Conservation section. I'd suggest calling that one action item, and collecting all relevant comments under it. In general, much general sourcing has been from the book Spix's Macaw by Tony Juniper. Citations from a book really need page numbers, and (re)finding key phrases in order to cite the page(s) is tedious. Sbalfour (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
    The reviewer is striking through resolved issues, so progress is being made. This review is quite short in comparison to some discussions for FA status. It would probably have been easier to have provided the page numbers for verification earlier as you added text. I am also thinking about the other parrot pages that you have edited without adding many references. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Your caution about other articles I edit is well founded. Before I get too far on Anodorhynchus and others, I'll go back and fill in refs. I know a lot about the macaws in particular, don't always know where I got the particular facts. Complicating it is personal communication with Al Wabra personnel and others.
  • I'd also suggest collecting any remaining style items, like duplicate wikilinks, missing wikilinks, numerals, convert templates, ref formatting, etc into one bullet item. Sbalfour (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I see nothing wrong with the reviewers approach of considering the article section by section. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Apologies to Snowman about removing info in the intro - it appears that I previewed that edit, changed computers, and didn't save it. Sbalfour (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Everyone can make accidental mistakes and it is good that you can be honest about it. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd like thank both Snowman and Sainsf for all the input; this article has been a lot of work. I'm an inexperienced editor, though I have extensive knowledge of the subject matter. My general approach has been to get the info transcribed, compose the text, then take care of ref'ing and stylistic items. Sbalfour (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I suppose that everyone has their own methods of editing. Verification is an important aspect of the Wikipedia. To make it easier for readers there is a common pattern or style recommended for all articles. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Oops, I would also like to thank editor Kim van der Linde for his valuable contributions to taxonomy, table entries, and other comments. I dashed off this section a little too quick.Sbalfour (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Where do we stand? Any article can be improved by reading, re-reading, etc. The items I mean are those that stand between here and GA. Sbalfour (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • In a GA all text must be supported by an in-line reference to make verification easier. Sometimes the reading and re-reading can take a long time. Sometimes more editors turn up and perhaps each will make a contribution to copy-editing. Snowman (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm traveling for TnxGiving, and don't have my books with me, so I won't be able to finish the refs for a few days. Any online sources, I'll be able to cite. Is there anything else still outstanding?Sbalfour (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • It is understandable that editors have other things to do and need to take a breaks from editing from time to time. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I've just read internationally regarded ornithologist and conservationist Nigel Collar's chapter on the Spix Macaw in his latest book Facing Extinction: The World's Rarest Birds and the Race to Save Them. There's no doubt about his scholarship. The article is compelling, but written in a much more narrative style. Not dry, like zoological articles. Compared to that, our article seems pale and brief. There's a lot of info in there about who saw what, when and where during the field survey days. Should that kind of historical and ecological info be incorporated here? A 12 year old wouldn't know what to make of that, but if I was a researcher, it would be invaluable. Wikipedia is the first and sometimes the last word for those get their info online. Thoughts?Sbalfour (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
On the extra info on sightings, I think that's up to you. I think it could easily reach GA and FA without it, but it certainly is interesting info, and wouldn't hurt adding. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
A narrative style may not be suitable here. I would guess that the usual aim is for unambiguous clear prose in good English on the Wiki. Why would a 12 year old not know what to make of accounts of historical observations of this species? Should Nigel Collar have his own Wiki article? Snowman (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm surprised that Collar doesn't already have a page - he's as well known topside as Forshaw is down under. But there's hairy warnings all over the wiki about doing biographies of living persons. Collar at least is not controversial. Do we have an editor of such unimpeachable judgement as would dare to create the page?Sbalfour (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Some of the on-line references and Brazilian gov pages are in Portuguese? Can any of the authors speak this language? Some of the information in Portuguese might be useful for the article. I am using language translation programs to read some of the on-line information. Snowman (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I copyedited the lead, and removed two overlinks later in the text, please check Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • Note : Fine, let us have updates here now. No new sections, subsections please. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I think that is would be tidier to add extra level 3 headings were necessary; however, I have listed updates and further comments below. Please to not put unresolved issues in collapsing boxes. Snowman (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "it's more like a conure" is a quote from 1900. However, I think that the understanding of what a conure was in 1900 is different to now, so I think that this is potentially puzzling or misleading. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
'Conure' references are ambiguous, but I can't speak for him. I've added a line of explanation.Sbalfour (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
You have recently changed it to; "it referred to the archaic genus Conurus". How do you know if he was referring to the archaic genus Conurus or the archaic subfamily Conurinae? Snowman (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The recent addition in round brackets explaining what "conure" meant to Dutton 1900 in terms of modern taxonomy is referenced with Dutton's 1900 reference, which is an implausible anachronism. Did you accidentally move the position of the in-line reference? Snowman (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I have completely changed the sentence about the 1981 catalogue by Tommaso Salvadori, because I found completely different information in the reference, which I have added as an in-line citation. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
You are absolutely correct! The title of Tommaso's work is also slightly wrong, I'll fix that, too. My source was the Al Wabra 2010 fact sheet, which in turn cited Juniper's book, where I also found the reference. Maybe they should both be flogged? (Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger).Sbalfour (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can see, messengers are editors and are supposed to be correct on the Wiki. You can not always believe what you see and hear on the internet. Even before this problem arose, I was wondering if the Al Wabra website is a reliable source (WP:RS) and I am beginning to think that it is not. Is it peer reviewed? Is it a self publication? Information from zoos' and museums' websites are not necessarily RS for the Wiki, and I suspect that the Al Wabra website is not a RS for the Wiki as a source of for biological science, but it might be reasonable to use them for counts of parrots that they are looking after, if the information can not be found elsewhere. I would be grateful for more opinions on Al Wabra as a RS on the Wiki, because finding RS to replace Al Waba as a reference will involve some more work; although, it should not be difficult. Of course, a GA should only be sourced from WP:RS. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Brazilian ornithologist Helmut Sick stated in 1981: "Cyanopsitta spixii...is not a real Macaw". What does the "..." (ellipsis) mean. Is this missing text? Can you confirm that "Macaw" is capitalised in his quote? What was the context of his statement? Snowman (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sick said: "The Indigo Macaw is the only true macaw in that region. The Little Blue Macaw (Cyanopsitta spixii), which is another endemic from Northeastern Brazil, is not a real macaw, and is not present in this region." Sick was explicitly emphasizing, giving the example of the Indigo macaw, a similar blue macaw, that Spix's is not a macaw. I've LC'ed the erroneous capital.Sbalfour (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
You have quoted what he said Spix's Macaw was not. What did he say it was? If this is part of the theme that the Spix's Macaw is an early evolutionary offshoot of ancestor macaws and slightly different to the other macaws, then the point not made well. As far as I am aware, Spix's Macaw is a macaw. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "later shortened to Cyanopsitta"; when and why? Snowman (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't know - I put that there, because I noted the discontinuity, and it needs some explanation; i.e. it's wasn't a simple misspelling or mis-transliteration: note orthopsittaca manilata which name was not shortened. Help?Sbalfour (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I do not know. Is it anything to do with Latin? Snowman (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
psitta is a diminutive of the Latin psittacus -- Late Latin psittacinus from the Old Latin psittacus, from the Ancient Greek psittakos: parrot. The statement needs amended - Bonaparte named the bird Cyanopsitta spixi in the original publication Revue et magasin de zoologie pure et, series 2, v.6 (1854), page 149. I inspected the facsimile copy directly. He did indeed spell spixi with a single 'i'. So, now the question is, who gave it two 'i's?Sbalfour (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "intermediate between the macaws and conures"; I think I roughly know what is meant by "conure", but I think that conures are rather loosely defined. Also, I think that its modern meaning (mostly used in aviculture) may be different to historical meanings. I think that it would be better to avoid the word "conure" where possible to enhance clarity, when a precise meaning is intended. Snowman (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Dutton called the bird a conure; introducing terms like parakeet for these birds (which Dutton likely would have been aghast at) is even more confusing.Sbalfour (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • ... but we are talking nineteenth century taxonomy. Presumably, the context was different and classification was different then. Surely, the article is confusing this. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I gather from other parts of the article that Spix's Macaw in not actually intermediate between the macaws and conures, because it included in the group of macaws. Is there an inconsistency here? Snowman (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I suppose it depends at what point Spix's Macaw and the other macaws and related parrot taxa each diverged. If Spix's Macaw is more like a "conure" than a macaw, then why is it not called Spix's Conure? At least, I have never seen it called Spix's Conure. Snowman (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I shan't continue to use the untenable 'conure' in taxonomic discourse. I've made two changes to the text to make clear what was referred to. I can't put words into Dutton's mouth, but do explan to modern readers what he meant.Sbalfour (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think that modern of "conure" in aviculture is quite understandable, but I think that taxonomists find it an odd word because the group is paraphyletic. I think that it could get more problematic when reading 18th and 19th century quotes that feature the word "conure". Snowman (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
It is now re-worded as "intermediate between the macaws and the smaller Arini". Is it really between the macaws and smaller Arini (meaning neither of them)? Snowman (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "the clade diagram(s)"; I presume that it can not be both "diagram" and "diagrams". Snowman (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've deleted the parens - there were multiple clade diagrams, but only one was exactly on point.Sbalfour (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I wonder if there is enough information to make a cladogram for this article. If so, then it could be useful, but not essential for GA. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think we do have enough info for such a cladogram. Is there a template I can insert?Sbalfour (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
There is a large cladogram on the Cockatoo article. If the science is not controversial, I presume that a cladogram will made the taxonomy section easier to understand. May I suggest that you politely ask User talk:KimvdLinde about cladograms on her talk page, because she has made a number of cladograms on parrot pages. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ah ha! As in 'where on earth did I get a book printed in 1638?' Actually, I do have a facsimile copy. It was written in dialectical Latin, similar to Old High Latin, and illustrated in many cases, by colored pencil drawings. The citation I had referenced a German translator's text; I read neither German nor High Latin, and the citation didn't leave a page number. I left this issue until such time as I can devote to searching the Latin text for some key words like azul or caerulea to locate the description of the bird.Sbalfour (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I download a digital version of the book yesterday. It was about 238 Mbytes. The parrots are on pages 206 and 207 (according to page numbers written in the book). My browser opened it after I inactivated the other book on the download page on the internet. There is a picture of a Blue-and-yellow Macaw, but no pictures of any other parrots. It is a scb file on my hard disc and I do not have the right software to read it at the moment. I have no idea what language it is written in. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Here's a link to the bird section of the book:[1] I thought it was Portuguese before I had even looked at the text, but yes, it is Latin on further inspection. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "the species was first observed and described by Georg Marcgrave in 1638"; I do not think that the claim that the species was first observed in 1638 can be correct, since I presume that native peoples saw them regularly for millennia. Marcgrave may have been the first European to write about the species, but not the first human to see one. Snowman (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
In a taxonomy section, we're implicitly referring to history relevant to it's taxonomy; Marcgrave first brought the bird to naturalists' attention - a new species is out there, let's find it - but didn't get it named for him because Spix collected the first specimen.Sbalfour (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Leah did not collect a specimen either, however a macaw is named after him. Snowman (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sigh... who decides who gets to name a bird? I originally didn't have this quip about Marcgrave in Taxononmy. Since I mentioned in History that Marcgrave found it first but it wasn't named for him (as we expected it should be), it needed to be explicitly stated in Taxonomy. If it isn't so stated, it'd make someone wonder, wouldn't it? I'm just as happy to remove the quip from Taxonomy as I was to put it in.Sbalfour (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
OK, reworded.Sbalfour (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "... has been clarified by recent molecular phylogenetic studies:" and the following two paragraphs resembles a list: I think that this part would be better, if written in continuous prose. Snowman (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think I slightly prefer a single para as you suggest, but it's a mouthful.Sbalfour (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Excuse my ignorance, I do not know what a "phylogenetic clade" is. It is jargon? Snowman (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
A clade is any group of organisms believed to have a common ancestor. We have names for some of these groups: species, genus, etc. Others we do not have specific names for, because they include for example some genera of a tribe or subfamily, but not others. The grouping can be on the basis of fossil sequences, molecular evidence, morphological evidence or possibly other markers. We don't have a phylogeny (sub-sub-family?) for all long tailed parrots, but on molecular ,i.e.(phylo-)genetic evidence, they all had a common ancestor(Wright). The sentence answers such questions in a nutshell as: how do macaws relate to other Amazonian parrots? Are all Neotropical parrots macaws? 'Clade' is a term whose definition needs to made clear in the context. I've seen "long-tailed parrots" in other journal articles, and it appears to have a specific well-defined meaning, which is all non-short-tailed (Amazonian) parrots. Together, they form the Neotropical parrots. Consider the bland phrase: C. spixii is a species in genus Cyanopsitta in tribe Arini in subfamily Arineae in family Psittacidae. It's as indisputable as it uninformative. What we'd really like to convey to the inquisitive reader, is how macaws are related (sister, cousin, etc) to other familiar parrots, i.e. context that fills in the picture. Yes, he can wiki-transfer to the Neotropical Parrot article, but it's nice to have at least a sentence or two inline to fill in some context. It's meaningless to just repeat what's in the Taxobox.Sbalfour (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Is it jargon? Can you say this with such a lot of species in the incertae sedis (uknown placement) group in Neotropical parrots? What is the relevance of Androglossini? Is the taxonomy section unstable and likely to become outdated owing to flux in the fast moving science of taxonomy, especially the understanding of the origins of parrots? Are conures paraphyletic? Should explaining the whole of the taxonomy of the parrots be exceedingly brief in this section about the Spix's Macaw? Snowman (talk)
yikes! These are god questions and we'll keep up with them as needed. I agree, though, that clade (vertical stratification) should be separate from taxon (horizontal stratification), as well as the clade-related "long-tailed parrot" usage. We'll soon have a clade diagram that'll absorb the clade info. For now, I've replaced the jargon-ish phraseology. (yes, parrot taxonomny is unstable, unfortunately).Sbalfour (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think that if you are explaining the whole of parrot taxonomy in one or two paragraphs, then you could get asked some fundamental questions. Snowman (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
We could go more, but the molecular-based clade relationships are stronger than the supposed genus relationships we've got. Explaining those here (other than for Cyanopsitta) is not the place. You're suggesting, I think, that we elide names of other taxons subject to flux. Regretably, it looks like we need to do that. but I'd like to keep some notion of the place of macaws relative to the other familiar neotropical parrots. I'll work on making the wording less specific on things we don't want to get into.Sbalfour (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Conures are a common name for a group of genera frequently kept in captivity without any taxonomic relevance. The phylogenetic position of the Spix is pretty clear. The genus Aratinga is polyphylectic and is going to be split soon in at least three genera. The position of many genera within the Arini remains unclear, but here again, we can expect a large study somewhere in the coming years that will take care of that problem. Until then we have to deal with that uncertainty. However, this all is irrelevant for the position of the Spic macaw, which base on both morphology and DNA is pretty well established (once you have seen the various articles and pieced them together. I will see if I can make a cladogram with the relevant species. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I was going to splice, cobble, whatever, a clade diagram. Your assistance is most welcome. I was unable to access the ScienceDirect articles on the molecular studies without an account. If you have PDF's of them, could you email them? I'd still like to see them, even if I'm not doing the clade diagram.Sbalfour (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • [to KimvdLinde]It's not at all clear to me that Spix is a macaw - while its closest relative is Red-Bellied macaw, Spix diverged from the ancestral parakeets before the ancestor of the modern macaws. It appears, therefore (my interpretation, maybe wrong) that the macaws are more closely related to each other (being chronologically closer in time of differentiation), than the Spix is to any of them. And the 2006 Wright study contained a disturbing clade diagram aligning the Spix and Nanday parakeet. I know the limitations of that study, but it clearly indicated that Spix is closer to Nandays than to the Ara macaws. I'll wait until I read the rest of the studies, but I think you already have better info than me.Sbalfour (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • If the science is not too controversial, then I would anticipate that a comprehensive cladogram would provide a good visual summary and make its phylogeny a lot easier to understand. However, I wonder if I am expecting too much, because the science might be incomplete at this juncture. I guess that it would not be inaccurate to say that; "the taxonomy requires further research", because there is a lot unknown about the taxonomy any phylogeny of parrots. I would not wish to see the article become too speculative or presumptive prior to further DNA studies that are likely to be more conclusive. The three big blue macaws have yellow skin; however, the Nanday Parakeet and the Blue-headed Macaw have black skin, like Spix's Macaw. Snowman (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Thinking about it I find it hard to believe this: "... Johann Baptist von Spix, who collected the type specimen in May 1819 in Brazil, but misidentified it as a Hyacinth Macaw". I doubt that he would have misidentified a Spix's Macaw for a Hyacinth Macaw. I think that it would not do any harm to double check the reference, especially since the Portuguese language Wiki has a completely different story. Snowman (talk), 27 November 2012 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Similarly, this is also implied in the unreferenced section which says; "He recognized, as Spix had not 150 years before, that C. spixii is notably different from the larger macaws". It sounds implausible to me that Spix did not notice the difference in the size of the two parrots. The Portuguese language Wiki has a completely different interpretation. Snowman (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "...hence the "little blue parrot of Spix"; which part of Cyanopsitta spixii means little? Surly, Cyanopsitta spixii means "blue parrot of Spix".Snowman (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • To speed things up I have removed "little", which seems to come from nowhere. If I have misunderstood the Latin, please let me know. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I added 'little': psitta is the latin diminutive of psittaca, parrot. The difference isn't merely syntactic, it is semantic: psitta is literally "little parrot". Similarly, the local name Ararinha Azul comes from the Tupi Ara: big noisy bird (hence macaw, in that locality) + -(r)inha, a diminutive hence little big noisy bird. Azul is the Portuguese for 'blue of the sky'. So the bird is little blue macaw.this edit unsigned by 50.136.198.73.
I have looked at on-line Latin to English dictionaries and the only meaning that I can find for "psitta" is parrot (not little parrot). Have a look at this on-line dictionary. I do not know much Latin. As far as I am aware, Latin is quite complicated. Perhaps, "psitta" is the feminine form of the word; see this dictionary. This dictionary indicates that psitta is the feminine form and psittaus is the masculine; see psitta a and psitta us . See also this webpage. I presume Micropsitta (pygmy parrots) means little parrot. I am very much a novice with Latin dictionaries, so I would appreciate more opinions. To me it looks like the "little" came from nowhere. Snowman (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I would ordinarily say I don't know Latin, except I can read it with difficulty. Latin has many declensions represented by an equal multitude of suffixes, each valid in a particular context, and with subtly different meanings. Both psitta and psittaca are feminine declensions and mean parrot. What would be the diminutive? I know forms like psittacala and psittacaula, and etc are just wrong. The "aca" suffix-like ending of psittaca is problemmatic for appending an additional (dimunitive) suffix. I know Latin well enough to not gloss over the difference between psitta and psittaca. It may be that psitta is an idiom, or an archaic form. I wouldn't be so brash as to say Bonaparte misspelled the Latin root, and no one after noticed and corrected it. Bonaparte almost certainly knew that the local name of the bird in the Tupi dialect was "Little Blue Macaw", and it seems likely that he transliterated that directly. My experience with Latin suggests a subtlety in the shortened form, with some meaning which Bonaparte also implied. The page heading says the name of the bird is "Little Blue Macaw", and presumptively, the binomial name would reflect that. Or is it really Cyanopsitta[sic]? I don't think we could get away with that, however. I won't feel badly, if you (or I) once again, strike "little" from the Latin translation :-O How does Sainsf weigh in? Let's decide, change it accordingly, and be happy :-)Sbalfour (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I reverted it, until Latin scholarship is forthcoming. CheersSbalfour (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have amended it to improve the readability, but it may need some more copy-editing. I have written in a reference for the origins of "Cyanopsitta". Snowman (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • There was a wikilink to Old Latin (for psitta) and a wikilink to Latin (for cyano). When I copy-edited the first part of the paragraph, I just left in one Wikilink for Latin. I am not very good on Latin. Should any of these wikilinks to be New Latin? Snowman (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "A 2011 study by the same authors"; which authors? Two groups of authors are mentioned in the paragraph. Snowman (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Amazonian parrots"; which parrots are these? I presume that it does not mean Amazon parrots. Does it mean parrots that live in the Amazon zone of South America? What about the parrots that live in the Atlantic Forest of south-eastern Brazil; for example the Blue-bellied Parrot. Snowman (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I have had a look at a version prior to the recent phase of editing to trace the referencing of the description section; see the article on 31 October 2012. At the end of October the section included the length of the bird, which can be readily verified from the in-line reference to the BirdLife International species fact sheet. However, the weight, tail length, wingspan, and tail length have been added, but the only in-line reference for all of these dimensions is still the one to the fact sheet. There is no mention of these extra dimensions in the fact sheet, thus I think that sample of references in this article will need to be spot checked. Personally speaking, I find this sort of a problem tends to make me wonder about where almost everything in the article has been sourced from. Snowman (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
What's happened is that the original info has been enhanced and split into two sentences; the original citation still (correctly)accompanies the second sentence. In dense prose like description, each sentence, even each phrase or datum, needs separately sourced. The measurements are unsourced; I'll supply citations as I get to them.Sbalfour (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • In which case you have separated an in-line reference from the text that it was supporting. Snowman (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • It contains quite a lot of text that can not be verified by in-line citations, which is a problem for a GA. Snowman (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I agree, many statements lack references, which does not satisfy the Verifiability criterion. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure I understand the assertion that text can't be verified by inline citations. It it just that text currently isn't verified, or that the text has some other problem? I'll put in citations for as many of the paragraphs as lack it, and then have y'all scan the article again. I understand the extent of the problem, and most assuredly have sources for the specific statements, which I'll insert.Sbalfour (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Very well. Go on putting citations. That is what the biggest problem is, and the sooner we fix it the better. And please reply to my comments on this page after you fix them. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Copyvio remark
The original text was in many places a copyvio from the al Wibra website. I never addressed that but it needs to be resolved before it becomes a GA.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
This is serious, and unintentional. I'm obviously familiar with Al Wabra, and incorporated information found there (such at the table). The only somewhat direct copy I did was a list of seed species in the Feeding section. Al Wabra, in turn, copied that list from an earlier report by others. Is a list really copyrighted? What other text are you referring to?Sbalfour (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I once did a check on a few sections and they were copyvio's at that time (before you started to work on the article). If you have reworked all text, those copyvio's are gone anyway. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think that this needs to be clarified that all the copyvio has gone or not. Where were parts copied from? Snowman (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "The sex of all captive birds has been determined using non-invasive DNA testing of plucked feathers"; I looked at what I assumed to be the reference for this, which was an inline ref at the end of the paragraph to a BBC video source, but this information is not in the reference. The information extracted from the video is limited to how one bird at Loro Park was gender tested. Any comments? A bird's blood can also be used for DNA sexing. Snowman (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The sex of all birds is known. Following the news releases, as soon as a chick is hatched (within a month or so,anyway) its sex is announced. Other accounts I've read about initial sexing in the early 90's had to wait until DNA technology was available, because laparoscopic sexing was deemed too risky when so few birds existed.50.136.198.73 (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
My main point is that there is no in-line reference for this in the article and what looks like the in-line reference for it at the end of the paragraph does not contain any information on gender determination of all the Spix's Macaws, but it does explain how one Spix's Macaw at Loro Park was tested. An in-line reference is needed for verification. I will ad a cn tag to indicate this. Snowman (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Editing was initially at a good pace; however, the rate of editing and progress has slowed recently. I would suggest to the reviewer that he assesses the progress on 15 December 2012 (giving all editors one weeks notice) and if editing and progress has continued to be slow then it would be reasonable to close GA discussion. Snowman (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Closing GA review edit

I have seen that there has been no progress in the GAN page even after a week of putting up the notice. Even the nominator is absent. I am sorry but now it is reasonable to fail this article. But this article should surely be renominated once all the issues are addressed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spix%27s_macaw/GA1&oldid=1136232045"