Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lord Howe swamphen/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 article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2018 [1].

Lord Howe swamphen edit

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about yet another near-mythical, recently extinct bird. It has one of the most confusing taxonomic histories of any species I've written about, so I hope I've made it somewhat easy to understand... Most of what has ever been written about the bird is summarised in the article, and it includes the most important illustrations. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I added the blurb to the article's talk page prematurely, 20 days before adding the nomination to the FAC list, thinking my then current nomination was soon to be closed, but now it seems that this confuses the FAC bot, which will keep moving this nomination to the "older" nominations:[2] I didn't know I couldn't just renew the time stamp here, but that it goes by time of page creation. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

Looks pretty comprehensive, just some first thoughts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could its discovery be split from Taxonomy, given the amount of detail there?

They're very interwoven, though, the taxonomic details already begin in the second paragraph, so a split would only lead to a single paragraph discovery section. Or did you have something else in mind? The thing with this bird is that so many aspects are very interwoven, the provenance, the specimens, the plumage, the names, etc., that it is very hard to separate without "damaging" the overall narrative and chronology. It was often the sum of (usually inaccurate) assumptions about these things that made various authors conclude one thing or another. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I can see that might be problematic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

multiple refs should be in numerical order

Do you know if there is some kind of tool to do this? How would you normally do it? FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a tool, I don't know of it. I do it the hard way, moving the refs manually... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps add derivation of Fulica too? Fulica is Latin for "coot" Jobling, James A (2010). The Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names. London: Christopher Helm. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-4081-2501-4.. Albus, Latin for "white", is same source p. 40.

I haven't added it for the other genus names (none of them are unique to this species), not even to the genus it is currently placed in, so it may be a bit out of place? It has mainly ever been placed in existing genera. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personlly, I always give the etymology of (current) genus and species names, but I know that's far from universal practice, so no big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what if I put in the etymology for the current genus, Porphyrio instead? FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, after looking up Porphyrio, it seems to just means "purple swamphen", a term already mentioned several times, so not sure if there is anything to really add... FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments by Wehwalt edit

Just a few things:

"The bird was first mentioned by the master of HMS Supply, David Blackburn, in a 1788 letter to his friend." I would end with "... a friend" as more appropriate.

Changed "his" to "a". FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" and George Raper, the midshipman of HMS Sirius." maybe "one of the midshipmen of ..." if more than one.

The source just says "was Midshipman on the Sirius", so I removed "the", better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Joseph Banks". He's pretty universally known as "Sir Joseph Banks" and I would so label him.

Done, though I wonder if he had yet been knighted... FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a contemporary illustration of the bird by captain John Hunter" not sure why "captain" is lower case.

Fixed, I think that was done during the copy-edit. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph beginning "In 1875" might benefit from splitting.

Split. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"He also pointed out that Australasian swamphens are prone to white feathering.[16][3]" if you are trying to keep refs numbers in order, these aren't.

Per request above, I ordered them all (I usually don't). FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and how they arrived in England. " it's not clear what this means. By ship, I'd assume.

Changed to "under which circumstances they arrived in England", better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems full and comprehensive, and otherwise to meet the FA criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, responded above. Good to have someone with a better grasp of naval lingo look over the article, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Your changes look fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now...

I made these changes. Other than that, nothing else to complain about prose or comprehensiveness-wise. Nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, someone has to take care of the extinct Australian birds too, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images licenced appropriately.

Refs formatted consistenly apart from FN 7 and 21 (books) lacking a publisher location.

Should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FN 9, cited thrice and faithful to source.

FN 15, cited once and faithful to source.

FN 24, cited once and faithful to source.

Earwig's tool has a high score due to (properly attributed) quote of Phillip. So ok.

Overall, sourcing and images ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra reviews! FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should add to nominators that yes the sources are reliable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

This one has been quiet for quiet a while so given the experience of the reviewers and the fact that all checks have been performed I don't think we need hold up promotion any longer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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