Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guadeloupe amazon/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 11:30, 21 June 2017 [1].

Guadeloupe amazon

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers two obscure, extinct parrots for the price of one; one was found to be based on a description of the other in 2015, after being the source of speculation for more than a century. Little is known about this bird, but it is associated with some nice historical artwork and some interesting contemporary accounts, so I found it worthwhile to flesh out the article anyway. It is also a sort of companion piece to the article about the Lesser Antillean macaw from the same island, which was promoted last year. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley

[edit]

Like I usually do, I will just give some quick comments to start, with the disclaimer that if I stop reviewing, feel free to, as long as all of the comments are answered, count this as a neutral or weak support.

  • In the lead, it would be best to describe what a ruff is; you mention it in the sentence "It had iridescent feathers, and was able to raise a 'ruff' around its neck."
It basically just means "feathers around the neck which resemble a ruff (clothing), so I'm not sure how to describe, but I've clarified by saying "ruff of feathers", and linked to the clothing... Seems the ruff bird is even named after the clothes. Perhaps something that could be added to the Glossary of bird terms? Perhaps in an entry with hackles, which is not listed there either (and are not restricted to chickens, as the article implies)... FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "It fed on fruits and nuts, and the male and female took turns sitting on the nest", it might be good to append to the end of it something like "and incubating the egg", as non-birders might wonder why a bird would sit on a nest.
I would, but none of the sources actually mention eggs, so even though it may seem obvious, it might border on WP:original research... All we have is what the old quote says, none of the later sources comment on it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After "likely" in the sentence "Due to the fact that Maria-Galante shares many modern bird species with Guadeloupe, they found it likely that the bone belonged to the Guadeloupe amazon, and assigned it to A. cf. violacea (which implies the classification is uncertain)", it might be best to add "but not certain", as otherwise readers might be confused about the uncertainty of the classification.
Isn't this already implied by "(which implies the classification is uncertain)"? We would call it uncertain twice in a sentence... Anyway, I said "suggested" instead of "found it likely", so it shows their uncertainty better. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for now! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've tried to address the issues, but some of them are a bit tricky... FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph after the quotations in the description section doesn't really seem needed. The end of the paragraph seems relevant, but it probably needs merged. Basically, the first part of that paragraph seems to be about other birds. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the paragraph is about comparing the bird described in the quote with extant relatives, to make sense of the old quote, and to show how it differed from the other birds. I tweaked it to make the relevance clearer to the Guadeloupe bird. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since you have shown how the paragraph is relevant, it looks good. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "In 1916, the American ornithologist Robert Ridgway criticised the illustration for differing from Du Tertre's description by, for example, showing all the covert feathers as yellow, apart from a red edge, whereas Ridgway thought Du Tertre had only meant that the proximal primary feathers were yellow", doesn't really make sense. It sounds like you are saying that Du Tertre's description said that the covert feathers were yellow. It makes sense after looking at it for a bit, but I suppose that you could get it better. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rejigged to make it clearer what is what, better? FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - One of the most interesting bird articles that I have ever read. I especially like the last sentence of the article—shows how birds are still in danger today, and how this could soon be just another extinct amazon. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, thought it might be a bit too dry for most readers, but nice you liked it! --FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's Support

[edit]

Okay. I reviewed this and my points are so minor that I am going to support with quibbles rather than just comment. Good work!

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2008 the ornithologists Storrs Olson and Edgar Maíz suggested that the Guadeloupe amazon was probably the same as the imperial amazon This whole section is kind of choppy. Maybe this line could be Ornithologists Storrs Olson and Edgar Maíz, writing in 2008, felt that the Guadeloupe amazon was probably the same as the imperial amazon. In contrast the English ornithologist Julian P. Hume wrote in 2012 that...
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediately after this I would make a subsection header for violet macaw
Added section. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • as freshly killed amazon species also show this to a greater or lesser degree If all amazons do this (to a greater or lesser degree) then drop the species from this sentence.
Removed species. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the text quoted in Behaviour and ecology, the bit about the flavour of the bird might be better in the hunting section bellow (ignore this if you disagree).
I gave this some thought when I added it, and though it isn't Du Tertre's point, he lists various food items the bird ate, and I thought this was more important to its lifestyle than its extinction. Du Tertre was mainly concerned about the effects of these items, but to us (and a biology article), it is more important in the context of what it actually ate. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose

I have no special knowledge of biology, but I can comment on prose and Manual of Style issues and throw in an odd question or two. Leaning toward support. Here are my brief questions and suggestions:
"Layman" comments are always useful and welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • It would be interesting to know why the parrots in the genus are called Amazona even when they are not endemic to the Amazon basin.
Pinging Casliber to see if his bird dictionaries have anything on this... FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I have only Ancient Greek and Latin dictionaries, and many of my Australian plant and mushrioom books give derivations. Birds I have used these and some google books. I just looked up the (Longer) Oxford English Dictionary and to my surprise, "Amazon" meaning the parrot wasn't in there (!). I'll start digging as it has always intrigued me too....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the images need alt text.
Added, though I'm not an expert on this. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • ¶1 "It was mentioned and described by 17th and 18th century writers, and received a scientific name in 1789." – To eliminate starting two sentences in a row with "it was", maybe recast slightly to "Mentioned and described by 17th and 18th century writers, it received a scientific name in 1789."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 "It was rare by 1779, and appears to have become extinct by the end of the 18th century." – Ditto for this one. Maybe "Rare by 1779, it appears to have become extinct by the end of the 18th century."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • ¶2 "that Buffon stated the parrot of Guadeloupe was not found..." – Add another "that" after "stated"?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶5 The direct quote needs a citation immediately after the end of the sentence in which it appears.
I'm not sure I follow, which quote is this? FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, it had been flagged with a "citation needed" tag by another editor. The tag has since disappeared and, looking at this again, I see that the text identifies Breton as the author and that a citation to his book appears at the end of the paragraph. To avoid confusion, I usually place a citation right after a direct quote, but the way you have handled this is clear enough. Finetooth (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • ¶3 "may have been scattered feathers in the wing coverts" – Link "covert" here on first use in the article rather than two paragraphs later?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • The ISBNs in citations 4, 7, 8, and 14 should be converted to 13 digits. A converter lives here.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All looks fine. Happy to switch to support on prose, as noted above. If you or Casliber are later able to answer the Amazona question, that would be nice but not necessary for my support. Finetooth (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Incidentally, I remember there was a fairly long discussion about the name of the amazon parrots at the bird project:[2] I was about to write that the Amazon parrot page doesn't have an etymology, but seems this source is actually used:[3] So I will add that soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp

[edit]

Lead:

  • "In 1905, a species of extinct violet macaw was also claimed to have lived on Guadeloupe, but in 2015 it was shown to have been based on a description of the Guadeloupe amazon." Is shown too definitive here? The main text says that Lenoble "concluded" this was so, but could it be argued there was some degree of speculation on Lenoble's part? Moisejp (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "shown" to "suggested". FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead describes the Guadeloupe amazon as a hypothetical extinct species (and says directly that "it appears to have become extinct by the end of the 18th century"), but also says it may well have been the same as the imperial amazon. We learn at the end of the article that the imperial amazon is still alive today. Would it be good to add a precision in the lead about this as well, so its clear that Guadeloupe/imperial amazon may not be extinct after all? Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added "extant" in front of imperial amazon a few places, does that suffice? FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely a help, and I think there is probably no perfect solution for this. But I note that the text seems possibly contradictory/confusing in that on one hand the text says explicitly that it was "possibly the same as the extant imperial amazon" (in the lead) and that Patricia Ottens-Wainright, Storrs Olson and Edgar Maíz all thought it was very possible or likely that the Guadeloupe amazon and imperial amazons were the same; on the other hand it says explicitly (in the lead and in the Extinction section) that "it appears to have become extinct by the end of the 18th century". I'm not insisting on any of the following, but here are some ideas that may or may not be helpful:
  • Lead: "it appears to have become extinct by the end of the 18th century" → "it may have become extinct by the end of the 18th century" or "it may have become extinct, and this by the end of the 18th century" or (but this could possibly open other cans of worms, even if it doesn't contradict the main text) "the amazons living in Guadeloupe appear to have died off by the end of the 18th century"?
  • "Extinction" heading → change to "Presumed extinction"?
  • "Because of this, there would have been a greater pressure on the Guadeloupe amazon, and it appears to have become extinct by the end of the 18th century" → "Because of this, there would have been a greater pressure on the amazons in the Guadeloupe region, and it appears none survived beyond the end of the 18th century"? Moisejp (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the issue, but you can also look at it this way; whether it was a distinct species or not, the population of amazons on Guadeloupe is no doubt extinct. So for example changing the title to "presumed extinction" would be wrong, because whatever it was, a local population of imperial amazons or a distinct species, it is extinct (see also local extinction, though none of the sources specifically mention this). So I think the current text is "true" and more "inclusive" of each theory either way, especially since only one source specifically states the two species were most likely the same, the others are much more cautious. FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy:

  • "In contrast the English ornithologist Julian P. Hume wrote in 2012 that though the amazons of Guadeloupe and Martinique were based on accounts rather than physical remains, he found it likely they once existed, having been mentioned by trusted observers, and on zoogeographical grounds." Does this mean Hume said the amazons of Guadeloupe and Martinique existed as separate species from the imperial amazon (as opposed to the theory by Olson and Maíz)? I'm just trying to figure out what exactly is being contrasted here—and if it's possible to clarify this in the text, that would be great. Moisejp (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added "species", to make it clear that we're not talking about mere populations, but distinct taxa. Is that enough? The source doesn't clarify further. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all my comments. The article is very well written and I expect I'll support when the issues above are addressed. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Answered above. As for consistency in taxobox authorities, it's a bit complex, original combinations should not have parenthesis around the authority, but when it comes to new combinations, it seems to be done in various ways, at least on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

  • File:Amazona.violacea.jpg: License appears to be correct, but given that it is busier perhaps one of the single-bird drawings would work better as the head image?
The current taxobox image is the only drawing by someone who saw the bird alive, so I think it was the most approipriate. The coloured one is speculative (and perhaps not accurate), and the other B/W drawing is derivative of the first. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the signature (JGK, John Gerrard Keulemans) in both. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I have just added a bit more info with this edit[4], which reviewers are of course welcome to check. First is a reference to another bone that may belong to this bird (but which was confusingly written about in the sources), and the rest is some discussion of the misleading citation Rothschild gave for the violet macaw, which I found a bit too esoteric before, but added in for good measure anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I can see a bit on ref formatting above but has anyone checked source reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been listed at the source review request page for some time. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source/ref review

[edit]

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Decide whether you want second author to be "J. Smith" (as in refs 9 & 11) or "Smith, J." (0thers)
  • Sources otherwise consistently formatted.
  • Earwig's copyvio clear
  • FN 11 coming up as "file not found"
  • FN 1, FN 13 and and FN 20 - faithful to source(s)
Thanks for review, I removed the dead link and fixed outlier refs 9 and 11. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 19 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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Guadeloupe_amazon/archive1&oldid=1049521782"