Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Choiseul Pigeon/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Choiseul Pigeon

edit

Choiseul Pigeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was written by Rufous-crowned Sparrow (with some input from me) and nominated for FAC a few months back. The process was going quite well (two supports), until he suddenly disappeared, and he has not edited Wikipedia since May. In the meantime, I have addressed the issues he did not get to fix before the FAC was closed, and I have made a few other alterations. So though Rufous-crowned Sparrow is not here, I would see this as a co-nomination. I tried to contact him through email long ago, but no reply. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Choiseul_Pigeon_Range_Map.PNG: source for range info?
Well, pretty much all books about the bird mention these islands. You want a source on the image page? FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source on the image page. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The colour scheme seems simple enough to not be copyrightable, and the bird icon is clearly a stylised derivative of the Keulemans image (I base this on the fact that his image is the first and the definitive image of the bird, which most others are based on, and on several details that are the same). Maybe stylised enough to be distinct? I can ask at Commons. A bit of useless info: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/sb-ch.html FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Quadell

This is a very strong candidate. The writing is excellent; I can find no grammar problems or unclear sections. The article seems as complete as the sources will allow, does not go off on tangents, and is will organized. The images are all free and used appropriately, and all necessary information is present. Every statement is sourced, and my spotchecks revealed no problems. I have a very few nitpicks.

  • Captions that are complete sentences (e.g. "Red denotes...") need to end in periods. Captions which are not (e.g. "Choiseul Pigeon on the flag...") should not end in periods.
Changed, but I'm not sure what you mean by complete sentence? FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Complete sentences have both a subject and a predicate (though both can be complex). When you say "Red denotes [X], while brown denotes [Y]", that's a complete sentence and needs final punctuation. There is no verb in "Choiseul Pigeon on the flag of the Choiseul Province". That's just a noun phrase. You could turn it into a sentence by saying "The Choiseul Pigeon is on the flag of the Choiseul Province", and then it would need a period. Anyway, you fixed it. – Quadell (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One reference ("Fuller 2001, pp. 185–188.") ends in a period. The others do not.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tennent journal article is 12 pages long and is referenced 14 times. It can be difficult to locate information used in the article. It would help the reader if the page numbers of each reference were given. (For instance, the first reference [a] only uses page 241, while the last [n] uses page 251.) This is true to a lesser extent regarding Hartert's and Rothschild's journal articles as well. (See the "Sources" section of John Sherman for an impressive example of such.)
Ouch, you want me to do it to the latter ones as well? FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would honestly be helpful in the case of the Tenant and Hartert references. It's not as helpful with a 2-page reference like Rothschild, but you might want to for consistency's sake. I can help with this. – Quadell (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll fix these issues before long. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this article is complete, well organized, well written, and fully sourced. The only thing not done is the paging for journal articles. I think that would be a clear improvement, and I'm willing to help with that. Regardless, I don't think it's an obstacle to FA status. – Quadell (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll certainly do Tennant, and then I'll try the other ones. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too late. :) I changed them in the way I suggested. – Quadell (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks! I have to say that ref-consistency is my least favourite part of the FAC process... FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Apart from a bit of redundant wording (which I tried to clean up), the article is in good shape. I don't have access to the sources so the accuracy of some of the statements is hard to access. But I think that on the whole it's FA worthy. Praemonitus (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. it was successfully source checked during the last FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Cwmhiraeth. In general this seems pretty comprehensive and looks good, but I have a few minor points about the prose:
  • "... allowing hunters to pick it up off of its roost." - Personally this makes me wince! Surely "off" is sufficient?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was only recorded by Albert Stewart Meek, who collected six adults and an egg from the northern part of the island in 1904. Despite many searches, the Choiseul Pigeon has not been definitively reported since Meek collected the six specimens in 1904." - This seems a bit repetitive.
Cut. Better? FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Gerrard Keulemans, the bird's original artist, depicted the crest as being flat based on Meek's specimens" - Needs a bit more punctuation for its meaning to be clear.
Changed, better? FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd to me to describe the birds iris, then its feet and then its bill. Is the "heel" the joint one can see on the leg in the illustration just below the plumage?
Changed order. The heel is the joint you mention. Some incorrectly call this a "knee". FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The start of the Distribution section has a number of very short sentences.
Made some changes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " ... did not turn up any signs of the pigeon." - A bit unencyclopedic perhaps?
Discover? FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It has been declared extinct by the IUCN Red List " - I don't think a list can declare the bird extinct!
By > on? FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would say "As there have been no substantiated reports since 1904 despite multiple searches, the IUCN has declared it extinct."
Alright, will do. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is likely that the Choiseul Pigeon was already close to extinction in 1904." - And Meek helped it on its way by killing 6 specimens and taking an egg! (Just a comment, no action required.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh, same story is true for many other recently extinct birds. Museum collectors were their worst enemies! FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Choiseul_Pigeon/archive2&oldid=1046366873"