Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tahiti rail/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) 03:40, 17 December 2016 [1].

Tahiti rail

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a short article about a bird known from little else than an 18th century drawing. In spite of this, quite a bit has been written about the bird, practically everything of which is summarised here. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

Your usual comprehensive effort, but of course I have some nit-picks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nit-picks are always welcome, I'll answer and fix issues soon. There are a few issues where I'm unsure what to do, so I have left some questions too. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

9 inches (23 cm) and similar. I think we normally put metric first in scientific articles, and in this case the islands were French, a long-time metric country, so all the more reason to do so

Yeah, I'm aware of this, but I was unsure because the only measurements ever given are Forster's, who only used inches, so I was thinking it would be "misleading" to state he gave them in metric units first? Also, the Pacific islands weren't French at the time, but ruled by native Polynesians. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally convinced, but I'll accept that for now and we'll see if other reviewers pick up on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it should be easy to flip the numbers if the time comes, I recall there is some kind of parameter for this, if I can make it work... FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12 3⁄4 and similar. I don't like the look of these, why not 12.75?

Hehe, I don't like them either, but that's how they were given by Forster, and I have no idea how to convert them (I am very bad with numbers)... So any help would be appreciated. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed to decimal, please revert if unhappy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me! FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't think we normally link sovereign countries like Tonga, also a dup link of this~~

Here, it is more to direct readers to the island (not the state), like the island of Tahiti, but the subject of the island and the state just happen to overlap. I will remove the duplink, but I'm sure readers would like a link to Tonga, which is not necessarily familiar to most people? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Cook's second voyage around the world (1772–1775), on which— during which?

Then we'll have two "during" in the same sentence, which I think would be a bit repetitive? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ferruginous (rufous) —I've sometimes been told that "rufous" is too obscure by FAC reviewers, better "rusty", as you have later

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The father and son were tasked with—were they paid professionals? Sometimes travellers were amateurs like Darwin, and your phrasing isn't entirely clear

None of the sources about the bird specifically state whether the Forster's were hired, but I assume that would have been the common practice. Only way to source this would be to some literature about the men themselves, but I think this might be a bit off topic? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'~~'only specified Tahiti—specified only'~~'

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tongan bird was placed on a list of extinct birds in a 1981 book, and Forster's plate of the Tahiti rail was used to illustrate the Samoan wood rail (Gallinula pacifica) in a 1989 book.[2]—any reason to not name the books?

Didn't find it necessary, but now added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~of predators—land predators~~

The source says "One often reads that flightlessness comes about as a result of the absence of predators, and while a number of islands where flightless rails occur do have avian predators, it is probably true that where one finds flightless rails one does not encounter native mammalian predators that are so destructive to ground-dwelling and nesting birds." So I added "(especially mammalian)", since land isn't specifically mentioned, and also added "and reduced need for dispersal" to the factors that allow flightlessness. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

("eyebrow") probably only needed at first occurrence

You mean only in the intro? I was under the impression that there should be no information in the intro not present in the article body? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a gloss is new info. Also, we often have uncontroversial info, such as alternative names, only in the lead (as here) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, but I personally like to have such explanations in the article body as well. You never know if the reader has read the intro, sometimes I don't, because I know the intro is just supposed to be a summary of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forster's Latin description of the bird translates as follows— If it's not your translation, you should acknowledge the translator

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

too bright red—too brightly red?

Yep, was my initial choice as well... FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

end of the 19th century, where after it began to decline; it had disappeared from there some time after 1844.— "thereafter", one word, would be clearer

Not sure how you mean, it should be "it had disappeared from thereafter 1844"? Seems a bit ungrammatical?

I had to read the sentence twice to make sense of it because "where after", as two words, seemed odd, at least to me. What about "...19th century, beginning to decline thereafter;? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Took that. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of very minor loose ends now to sort out before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support above, the parameter you mentioned, if you need to use it is, unsurprisingly, order=flip (I had to read through them all recently to find how to do "million" as part of the string). Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Gallirallus pacificus.jpg: Free image on Commons, the license seems to be correct. Also, apparently this watercolour is the primary source of information we have on this bird.
File:Hodges, Resolution and Adventure in Matavai Bay.jpg: Free image on Commons, the license is also plausible. Source link seems to be offline at the moment. It's a painting depicting the landing of James Cook on Tahiti, which is discussed in the section.
File:Societe isl Tahiti.PNG: Free image on Commons, derived from File:Karta FP Societe isl.PNG which is also a free image. A map of the place the bird existed on is obviously germane in the infobox.
File:Gallirallus.pacificus.jpg: Free image on Commons, caption has a caution note on the colour of the legs, something discussed farther down in the section. License is well supported. An image of the bird in the section describing it seems pertinent to me.
File:Buff-banded Rail Fafa Island.jpg: Image of a related bird, free image on Commons. It's used as a comparison image, given that this bird actually still exists. Own work, free license, lower resolution versions of this image taken from Commons exist elsewhere on the web.

Might want to use ALT text for the images, but other than a broken link I see no issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Maybe I can link to an archived URL... FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

~~According to Bruner, the bird was said to have been common on Tahiti until the end of the 19th century,~~ ~~- should that be "18th century"?~~

~~Otherwise~~ looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this puzzled me too, the source says "It became extinct on Tahiti earlier, some time after 1844. It was said to be very common on Tahiti until the end of the 19th century, when it began to decline in numbers, probably as a result of the introduction of cats and rats (Bruner 1972)." Seems it may be a mistake, so not sure what to do. Maybe I should simply snip the "very common in the 19th century" part? Could be a mistake, the Hume source is even more confusing, it states the bird was discovered in 1844, long after Cook was on Tahiti, so that's a clear mistake, which contradicts the other sources... I think the date 1844 has confused some writers; it is the date Forster's description was published posthumously, but many later sources don't even acknowledge its existence, some stating the bird is only known from the drawing... And to be honest, I think all Bruner's statements are quite dubious, but they have not really been challenged in later literature. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - in which case we just reflect the sources...which is what is in place. okay, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Cas Liber

~~Ref formatting - FN 10 author looks weird....?~~

Spotcheck to come...

FN 14 true to source ~~(source also mentions limited food resources as a reason for flightlessness - any reason not included as well?)~~
FN 1, used thrice, true to source
FN 17, used once, true to source

Ok so looking good apart from one minor query above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will fix these later today. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did some edits, looking better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - all good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 16 December 2016 (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) 03:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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