Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Green rosella/archive1

< 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 via FACBot (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2017 [1].

Green rosella edit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a nice parrot from Tasmania. It's come together nicely and I reckon is comprehensive and a nice read. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

A few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It may be obvious to an Ozzie that the range map shows Tasmania, but not to me without reading the text. Add location to the caption?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13th edition of Systema Naturae—worth mentioning that Linnaeus wrote the earlier editions?
not sure how the best way to do it is..is it too far removed from subject. Could described it as Linnaeus' Systema Naturae I guess...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • has been recognized [13][8]'—refs in wrong order
switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also eats berries… They have also partaken… It may also eat insect larvae—wandering from singular to plural and back
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found Crimson Rosellas in Queensland sometimes to be very approachable, anything on the wariness or approachability of this? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find rosellas not hugely bold but not hugely shy either. Have seen a few in Tassie. Did not see anything on this in writing. The main psittacines that are shy are black cockatoos. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) edit

  • Beruldsen is a self-published source, what makes this a high quality reliable source?
Gordon Beruldsen was a notable expert on birds. He is often cited in other bird publications Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is widely published in respectable journals. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, two uncontroversial facts referenced to an accepted expert on the subject don't seem a source of concern to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give locations for two of the three "cited texts" but not for Forshaw - consistency.
Whoops, added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (moral or otherwise) from me. I did the GAN review for this article and my comments can be found on the talk page. Cheers Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • I'll review this soon. First thing I noticed was that some of the captions begin without capital letters? I fixed the taxobox image, but now I see it's in the image under description too, so is it somehow deliberate? FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
given they were not sentences, they don't have to start with a capital, but I got called out on that as while ago. Just a lazy hangover from times past and fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He based in on the description of la Perruche à large queue, "the long-tailed parrot" by French naturalist François Levaillant in his 1805 work Histoire Naturelle des Perroquets." There seems to be a typo there, but also, if he had a specimen, why did he base the species on a description in a book?
"in --> it" - also good question, they seem to base them on a combination of specimen and non-complying museum description. It's weird. Not sure if the person actually eyeballed the specimen. But this seems to happen quite a bit early on... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems there are enough synonyms to warrant a list in the taxobox.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The green rosella was first collected" Maybe state this was a single specimen? Because you refer to "the specimen" later.
clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what grounds are the pictured individuals sexed? The dimorphism seems to be very subtle?
the differences in plumage are subtle but consistent if you see them often - females just that tiny bit duller. Also the reddish patches around the face. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are sometimes share the company of eastern rosellas" Seems something is wrong.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it is notable enough to mention that the specific name is a misnomer in the intro?
Yeah I did muse on this before. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and so described it as P. c. henriettae." When?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is the largest species of the rosella genus, Platycercus." Only stated in intro.
added to body and reffed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the green rosella rated as least concern" Seems a word is missing.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp edit

Hi. I started reading with the intention of doing a spot check as you requested (I likely may still be able to do one) but this sentence jumped out at me from the lead: "The back is mostly black and green back and long tail blue and green." I've read it several times and not sure how to parse it. Should this be something like "The back is mostly black and green, and its long tail blue and green"? Moisejp (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yep, and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "ships' surgeon": I'm not that familiar with nautical things, but I just wanted to confirm ships' is correct—he was the surgeon of multiple ships?
Yes, there were two ships on the Third voyage of James Cook Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tasked as the expedition's naturalist, Anderson collected many bird specimens but had died of tuberculosis in 1778 before the return home." May I suggest "but died of tuberculosis"? I'd argue there's no need to use the past perfect here, as the events are chronological as is: 1. he collected bird specimens; 2. he died; 3. the ship returned home.
yes/changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency: "January 26 and 30 1777" vs. "23 April 1802" Moisejp (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the rest of the article very soon, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feeding, first paragraph: "It also eats the seed of the soft tree fern... It also eats berries, nuts and fruit... It has also partaken of... It may also eat..." The structure seems a bit repetitive here. Could you consider varying the structure and replacing some of the instances of "also"? Moisejp (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Birds generally forage in the canopy or understory of forested areas, or in hedges, shrubs and trees in more open areas. They come to the ground to eat fallen fruit or spilt grain in orchards or farmland. They keep quiet while on the ground, and are quite noisy when in trees." Is this talking about all birds, or just green rosellas? If the latter, I think it would be better to specify this. Even if it's the former, it might be better to clarify as well, partly because the next sentence talks about "under 20 birds... 50 to 70 birds" which does seem to be specifically about green rosellas. Moisejp (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As it breeds late in the season, chicks are often small in the heat of summer and can suffer as a result." I wasn't sure whether this sentence was supposed to be related to the previous one about sunflower seeds, and if so, how. Or definitely how it is related to keeping the birds as pets. Moisejp (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
summers are often hot. small/young chicks are more vulnerable to extremes of temperature. Hence, as they breed late, the chicks are at greater risk (as they are younger) if there is a hot spell. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, it's not related to the previous sentence about sunflower seeds, right? Is it related to keep the birds as pets, which I understand is the theme of the paragraph? Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - the section is called Aviculture which is "In Capitivity". I could change the header to make it clearer Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:

  • "The green rosella has yellow head, neck and underparts": A bit awkward because it should probably be "a yellow head, neck" but a doesn't work with underparts. How about "The green rosella's head, neck and underparts are yellow, and it has a red band above the beak and violet-blue cheeks."
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This has since been reclassified as a synonym of P. c. brownii as its status as distinct from the Tasmanian mainland taxon—now known as P. c. caledonicus—has been recognised." Could you consider rearranging this to be "This has since been reclassified as a synonym of P. c. brownii, as its status has been recognized as distinct from the Tasmanian mainland taxon—now known as P. c. caledonicus"? I find this would be less effort for the reader to follow.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is inconsistent use of the serial comma throughout the article. Here are just a few examples:
  • (NS) "The green rosella has yellow head, neck and underparts"
  • (S) "Alternative common names include Tasmanian rosella, yellow-breasted parakeet, and mountain parrot."
  • (S) "it also eats the seed of the soft tree fern (Dicksonia antarctica), cranberry heath (Astroloma humifusum), myrtle beech (Lophozonia cunninghamii), Australian blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon),[28] silver wattle (Acacia dealbata),[29] and buttercups (Ranunculus)."
  • (NS) "It also eats berries, nuts and fruit, as well as flowers and new buds of southern sassafras (Atherosperma moschatum), mānuka (Leptospermum scoparium), shining tea-tree (Leptospermum nitidum), swamp honey-myrtle (Melaleuca squamea), Tasmanian bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus), Smithton peppermint (Eucalyptus nitida), messmate stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua), snow gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora), manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis), small-fruit hakea (Hakea microcarpa) and native plum (Cenarrhenes nitida)." Moisejp (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hate oxford commas but they are very good to slot refs behind...I will have aligned by removing all I could find. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about half way through my second read-through. I may still have more comments. Moisejp (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead says "The King Island subspecies has been classed as vulnerable as much of its habitat on King Island has been lost", and thus seems to explicitly say that the loss of habitat was the main cause. The Distribution and habitat section says "It has become rare on King Island, possibly due to land clearing and competition with the introduced common starling (Sturnus vulgaris) for nesting sites." The Status and conversation section says "The King Island subspecies is listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as vulnerable,[32] and its population thought to number fewer than 500 birds.[33] Around 70% of King Island's native vegetation has been cleared, and the remainder is highly fragmented and at risk of too-frequent bushfires." It does not explicitly say the clearing of vegetation was the cause (although, granted, it is implied). Throughout these sections there may be different levels of certainty implied about what the cause was. And I wonder if the cause needs to be repeated in both the Distribution/habitat and Status/conversion and section (but this is a smaller issue). Moisejp (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
have rejigged as the connection between loss of habitat and decline is pretty unequivocal in source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still find the final sentence about chicks suffering not clear about how this is specifically an aviculture issue, as opposed to an issue that could also happen in the wild. Plus, as I mentioned, it is confusing as to whether it is supposed to be related to the sentence that precedes it, about sunflower seeds. If it were me, I might consider removing the sentence, but if you are very comfortable that it belongs, that's okay.
Okay, here's the thing. We don't know if it's an issue in the wild but we do in capitivity. Also, I suspect that the parent allow for climate/ventilation etc. in the wild. But again, I can only go on what is in the sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all my comments. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now happy to support this article. Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot check: You did a source spot check for my last FAC nomination, and I'm very happy to return the favour here. I checked the first three refs (BirdLife International, Stresemann, Cook) and all the information cited was correct per the sources. I am satisfied and consider the source spot check passed. Moisejp (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thx/appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 24 June 2017 (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/Green_rosella/archive1&oldid=1144120086"