Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mascarene Parrot/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 10:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Mascarene Parrot

edit

Mascarene Parrot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every aspect of this species is complicated, but I have tried to show every viewpoint, including obscure historical ones. It was excellently copy edited today, so I feel it is quite good now, and I like the complexity of the bird's history, and hope others will find it interesting. I have another FAC co-nomination up, but as far as I understand this allows me to nominate one more article (this one). FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting and well-researched article; I hope this one doesn't get lost on the FAC page!

  • "The Mascarene Parrot was 35 cm (14 in) in length" Up to or around, surely?
The sources give nothing but this dry measurement, so I'm not sure what to do. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "descriptions based on stuffed specimens instead describe" Repetitious
Changed to state, ok? FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A third stuffed specimen existed around the turn of the 18th century.[3]" Source mention anything else? Is it possible it's still around somewhere?
Nothing else is stated in the source about it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mascarene Parrot received the scientific name Psittacus mascarinus (abbreviated as "mascarin") by Swedish zoologist Carolus Linnaeus in 1771." it was named by, or it received a name from (I prefer the former)
Not sure how to implement it if I also want to mention the name. "Was scientifically named *** by ***?" FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "was [[Species description|described]] as *** by ***"? J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This disagreement led some authors to use invalid combinations of the scientific names, such as Mascarinus obscurus and Coracopsis obscura. It may have been an African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus) instead." All apparently unsourced?
Ah, I can see the paragraph was split by the copy editor. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moluccan Eclectus Parrots" I read this (and I suspect most will!) as a species name, rather than a species name with an adjective.
Change to "from the Mollucas"? FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did that. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the coracopsinae (of African origin)" Surely, that should be a capital C?
  • Same for psittaculinae.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found the Mascarene Parrot to be nested among the subspecies" Nothing wrong with it, but the pun did make me chuckle...
Heheh, yeah, I think there was a long discussion about how to phrase it in one of the other FACs that mention it too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hume has expressed surprise by these findings" He expressed surprise at the findings
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also points out that the time of divergence proposed for the Mascarene Parrot in the study is long before Réunion came into existence. This would indicate the parrot evolved elsewhere before colonising Réunion, but there is no fossil evidence found on other islands to support this." You've just mentioned this; you could summarise by saying something like "He also points out that there is no fossil evidence found on other islands to support the hypothesis that the species evolved elsewhere."
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such a transformation has also turned the sole specimen of Townsend's Dickcissel (Spiza townsendi) from grey to brown.[2]" A glance at the article suggests that this is a controversial species
Yeah, but the colour transformation should be legit enough. The debate is just on whether it is a distinct species or just a colour morph. Clarify? FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you call it "the sole specimen of Townsend's Dickcissel (Spiza townsendi)", you seem to be presuming that it is a distinct species, not a colour morph; I'm worried about this for NPOV reasons. J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try to rephrase it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased, better? FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better? FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and these errors have been repeated by subsequent artists" Are you not question-begging by calling them errors?
Features? Interpretations? FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Features" works. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Forbes made his description from the Paris specimen" How about "based his description on the Paris specimen"?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That the Vienna specimen was partially albinistic may have been the result of a long period in captivity." How so?
The source doesn't state it, but refers to another source which I guess explains this for birds in general. I imagine it would be original synthesis if I added such information here, as it does not address this bird specifically? FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the source refers to this as an example of something discussed in another source (and cites that source) then there would be no OR violation in explaining what the latter source says. Alternatively, if you think you're going off-topic, ignore me! J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was wondering about it too, I think it may have something to do with nutrition. I'll see if I can find the source. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found the citation, but doesn't help much. It appears to address the specimen after all, but it seems to have been during a talk at a convention: Schifter, H. (1994) Historical specimens of parrots in the bird collection of the Museum of Natural History, Vienna, Austria.In: III International Loro Parque Parrot Convention, Loro Parque 14th to 17th September 1994. Puerto de la Cruz-Tenerife-Spain, 34–48. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dubois mentioned that the Mascarene Parrot was not edible" This seems to contradict Feuilley's 1705 account?
Very good observation, only one source mentions it, and doesn't elaborate on it, and I have not come across Dubois' original text. Not sure what to do about that one. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very strong- you have made the rather complicated history very readable. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could perhaps say something like "Contrary to Feuilley's earlier claims, Dubois mentioned..."? J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great- I'm happy with the improvements. I'll have another look through the article when I'm feeling a little sharper. J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sorry for taking so long to get back to this, but I'm definitely happy with the article. I don't think there's anything wrong with leaning on one source- it's recent, and published in a respected journal by a respected academic. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Interesting article, just a few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • travelog—this is AE spelling
Fixed.FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle—capitalisation is wrong, all caps
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This name was first used by French zoologist and natural philosopher Mathurin Jacques Brisson in 1760, but was not intended as a binomial.—Binomial points to the maths term. The statement is incorrect anyway, it was a binomial, but did not refer to a system of classification as with the Linnean forms
"As a scientific name"? FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • some Eclectus Parrots—"an Eclectus Parrot" or "the Eclectus parrots"
The problem is that it was just some subspecies of that parrot that were included, not all subspecies of it are from the Moluccas. And to further complicate it, they were considered full species then. What am I allowed to explain, before it becames OR? FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • remaining bones inside with the subfossils,—inside is redundant, X-rays pointless if outside
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psittaculinae parrot—parrots?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its plumage pattern was mostly atypical for psittaculines—for a psittaculine
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • tail feathers and rest of the head—tail feathers aren't part of the head, you've become separated from the earlier sentence
Removed "rest of". FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • hand coloured—hyphen
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • were likely based... others likely all became—AE use of "likely"
Changed to probably throughout. What does likely mean in BE then? FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In British English, it tends to be used intransitively, either with no following verb—it is likely that—or to be followed by an infinitive—were likely to be based— Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably went extinct prior to 1800... Réunion to go extinct.—"became/become" sound more natural to me, "go" sounds too directed (to me at least)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cwmhiraeth.

    • Reading through the article I am struck by how clear and straightforward the prose is. A few points however:-
  • "The taxonomic relationship of this species has been subject to debate." - I would use the plural here.
  • "It may have been an African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus) instead." - It is not clear what "It" refers to here.
  • "Subfossil parrot remains have since been excavated from grottos on Réunion." - Since what?
I think "Subfossil parrot remains were later excavated from grottos on Réunion." would be better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... they were more similar to those of the Mascarene Parrot, and subsequently referred to it. - Is "referred" a technical term meaning "considered to be" or something?
  • "... Hoopooe Starling in the mid-19th century." - Too many "o"s here.
  • That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments, made alterations, as for since, no date is mentioned, would later be better? FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied that the article reaches FA standard on prose and comprehensiveness and have changed my "Comments" to "Support" above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ceranthor
General
  • Dabs and reflinks check out.
  • Apparently ref 10 changes domain, but I do not think that matters.
  • Lots of unnecessary commas, but I am doing my best to fix them.
  • References all seem reliable.
Lead
  • The exact placement is, as yet, unresolved. - Why as yet? It is redundant.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • A third stuffed specimen existed around the turn of the 18th century.[3] - What became of it?
The sources don't say, and I guess it just disappeared, like many other such specimens have. FunkMonk (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • to "island hop" - Is this a quote? It sounds informal to me.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • The wing was 211 mm (8.3 in), the tail 144–152 mm (5.6–6 in), the culmen 32–36 mm (1.2–1.4 in), and the tarsus was 22–24 mm (0.8–1 in). - Why do use ellipsis and then use the verb "was" again? Keep it consistent.
removed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose looks very strong. Unsure about a ref used 19 times, but I suppose it is acceptable. I will come back once my comments are resolved. ceranthor 15:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comma fixes, not my strong side. I'll fix the other issues. As for the ref that is used a lot, it is because it is the most extensive review of what is known about the species, also with a lot of novel interpretations. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Message me when you're done. ceranthor 16:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have been addressed. ceranthor 20:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Looks to me that we're still awaiting image/source reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were three supports in very quick succession. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - where was File:Hahn_Mascarinus.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You mean country or publication? This is the original citation (will add it to the file): Hahn. C.W. (1834) 1834–41. Ornitologische Atlas oder naturgetreue Abbildung und Beschreibung der aussereuropäischen Vögel. Erste Abteilung: Papagaien. Nurnberg, C.H.Zeh'sche Buchhandlung, 54. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - I'll do this ... give me a day. Sasata (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • the IUCN citation should have the name of the author/contributor
Alright, first time this has ever been suggested to me, though. FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref#3 should indicate (ed.) after the name Diamond; publisher location for this source?; ISBN hyphenation?
I'm not sure how to implement ed. Write it manually in the name field? Rest done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that'll work. Sasata (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • journal article titles are not consistently in either title or sentence case
Made all small, it seems this is only a problem with 19th century publications. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • many of the older Ibis issues are available at Archive.org; perhaps some of the citations here could link to the free full text directly
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and S.N. is the publisher, don't know what it stands for. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mourer-Chauvire et al. 1999 should be formatted as cite book, or perhaps cite conference
Made book. Is there a template for the latter? FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Cite conference; I think it looks fine after this. Sasata (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ensure subtitles (in journal article titles, following a colon) after consistently capitalized (or not)
As far as I can see they are all capitalised? FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Chere & Hume source uses a rather wide page range (65 pp); consider spliting this into short citations with more specific page #'s to ease reader verification
Started out, will probably finish tonight or tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "R. P. Prys-Jones, R. P." duplicated initials
Also needed the name fields, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider changing the old ISBN 10s to the recommended ISBN 13s (here's a handy converter)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All source issues addressed, some have not been solved, waiting for instructions. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All minor issues addressed, sources look fine. Sasata (talk) 00:03, 20 September 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/Mascarene_Parrot/archive1&oldid=1086353410"