Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rodrigues parrot/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) 13:07, 4 March 2017 [1].

Rodrigues parrot

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last article about an extinct species of parrot from the Mascarene islands yet to be nominated here, so I thought it was time to put it up. Very little is known about the bird, but most of what has ever been written about it is summarised here. The article also covers two supposedly congeneric, but dubious, species. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

The usual nitpicking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it has been classified as a member of the tribe Psittaculini—"it is…"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to avoid introduced rats—makes it sound like a decision, perhaps where introduced rats were absent

Sources say avoid, but changed anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parrots thought to be the Rodrigues parrot—perhaps replace "parrots" with "birds" or "specimens"?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greek words necros, which means dead, and psittakos, which means parrot— personally I'd omit the second which means

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

perched in parlors— reads oddly, "in captivity"?

I said "presumably in captivity", since it isn't stated specifically. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

correlated, mentioned are repeated in consecutive sentences

Rewrote. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley

This is a short article, at least compared to the other bird articles I have been reviewing, so I should be able to do my initial comments in one fell swoop.

In the sentence "The Rodrigues parrot was scientifically described and named as Psittacus rodricanus in 1867 by the French ornithologist Alphonse Milne-Edwards, based on a subfossil partial beak," Psittacus should not be linked in the binomial name.

Why? The genus name isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, then possibly mention the original genus when talking about the move, so you can link to it there. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this is necessary, though? As far as I know, there are no guidelines for this. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is particularly necessary, but it is just kind of odd to link only one thing in a scientific name. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why one might have an aversion towards it, but I don't think it's worth stating the name again just to make room for a link. There is a FAC precedence for linking the genus name in in a binomial at Broad-billed parrot, for one. There are probably more. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, sounds good. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence "Milne-Edwards corrected the spelling of the specific name to rodericanus in 1873 (in a compilation of his articles about extinct birds), a spelling which was used in the literature henceforward, but it was changed back to rodricanus by the IOC World Bird List in 2014," it should probably be something like "changed the spelling" instead of "corrected the spelling", WP:NPOV.

He specifically stated the original spelling was an error, see the footnote here:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well then why don't we see what other reviewers say about it? RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume they've accepted it, since they haven't objected in their own reviews? Anyhow, I'm not entirely sure what the supposed problem is? Milne-Edwards stated his first name was an error, he proposed a corrected spelling. This is what the sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Sorry! RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly change the sentence "Milne-Edwards moved the species to its own genus Necropsittacus in 1874; the name is derived from the Greek words necros, which means dead, and psittakos, parrot, in reference to the bird being extinct," to "Milne-Edwards moved the species to its own genus Necropsittacus in 1874; the name is derived from the Greek words necros, which means dead, in reference to the bird being extinct, and psittakos, parrot." This would be to make it a bit more clear that necros is referring to the extinction of the bird, not psittkos.

Well, it is the entire name, "dead parrot" (not only "dead") that refers to its extinction. This order is also the one given in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well then possibly rephrase the last part to say something like "in reference to it being an extinct parrot." RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other reviewers have recommended not repeating the word parrot twice in a sentence, so why should we do it here? It should be pretty clear that the current word "bird" refers to the parrot. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, sounds good. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps modify the sentence "It may be specimen UMZC 575, a rostrum that was sent from Milne-Edwards to A. Newton after 1880, which matches the drawing and description in Milne-Edwards' paper, but this cannot be confirmed," to get rid of "may" and instead say "it has been suggested to be", just because it sounds a bit like editorializing.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the behaviour and ecology section, the first quote starts out sounding like it should be in the description section, not to mention the text before it. I think that you should probably split the different sections of the quote into different sections, it should be short enough that you don't have to do another indented quote.

Hmm, I'd prefer not, that quote includes all Tafforet said about the bird, so it's nice to keep it in one place. In any case, the descriptive part is already summarised in the description section. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just remove the quote and summarize it? I mean, it starts out looking like it should be in the description section, and then ends up looking like it is in the correct section. Either split the quote so the sections aren't going all over the place, or summarize it. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since no one else has objected to the quote, and the sources give them in this way, I'm not sure if it's really a problem. The account isn't neatly divided into description and behaviour either; it starts out with description, then behaviour, then mentions the colour, and then behaviour again. Better have the full quote for completeness than a truncated quote, as we're not exactly low on space here. It's little different from several prior FACs about similar subjects. FunkMonk (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford comma(s) are needed in the behaviour and ecology section.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably specify the actual number of parrots in the sentence "Of the eight or so parrot species endemic to the Mascarenes, only the echo parakeet (Psittacula eques echo) of Mauritius has survived."

"Eight or so" is because there's no consensus yet on the status of the Réunion parakeet (could be a subspecies, species, or a synonym) and the hypothetical N. borbonicus (which could theoretically be confirmed if remains of a distinct parrot were found). FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence "The others were likely all made extinct by a combination of excessive hunting and deforestation," it might be good to specify if it was humans, introduced animals, or a combination of both that did the excessive hunting.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, this is a nicely prepared article. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some, added comments to some. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good, really well prepared article. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 18:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry if I seemed dismissive to some suggestions above, but some issues are more a matter of individual taste than FAC criteria, I guess... FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine! You provided adequate reasoning for your comments, so it is all good. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 18:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sabine's Sunbird

From lead It frequented and nested on islets off southern Rodrigues where introduced rats were absent, and fed on the seeds of the Fernelia buxifolia shrub. - This describes a (presumably) narrow historical state in a way that doesn't make it clear to the average reader that it only represented the historical distribution. The species would have had at one time a wider distribution across the island.

Added "By the time it was discovered". FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, support Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

Images are Creative Commons-licensed or Public Domain - OK.
Sufficient source and author information (one author is unknown/unclear, but the work is old enough to ascertain Public Domain status) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aa77zz

I've made some small edits.

Ref 3 Leguat, F. (1891) - This should be volume 1 not volume 2. Also available from BHL here. (My preference is to use "volume=Volume 1" in the template for books which avoids the bold 1.)

Changed to 2 and added "volume". FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"sent from Milne-Edwards to A. Newton" - need to introduce and link Alfred Newton here rather than in the next paragraph. Perhaps point out that the two Newtons were brothers.

Right, I recently swapped the position of two paragraphs, so the link was moved down. Noted they were brothers. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Tafforet in the Behaviour and ecology section is misleading as it joins two separate portions of text. The sentence "The "Bois de buis"... actually comes a few pages earlier in the text (in the transcription by Milne Edwards 1875 on page 12)

Summarised in-text instead. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An observation - no action necessary: The article correctly quotes Hume's translation of Tafforet's text but Hume bizarrely translates "citronnier" as "orange tree" instead of "lemon tree". In French an orange tree is "oranger". Both Newton 1874 on page 41 and Milne Edwards 1875 on page 15 have "citronnier". - Aa77zz (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is translated as "orange-tree" in three different Hume sources (2007, 2008, 2012), and they're the only translations I know of, so not sure what could be done... FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered Tafforet's text is translated in an appendix to volume 2 of Leguat's book, and it is here the "orange tree" translation is taken from:[3] So Hume has just quoted that translation, and it seems there has been no other attempt at translation. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All good. I've supported above. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I like when reviews scrutinise the old sources... FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review Aa77zz has done half the work for this already, but I've formally checked 1,7, 10, 17 (including the book ref) and there are no problems with content or use Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

This hasn't been open too long but as it garnered expert commentary very quickly, and there have been no new reviews for the best part of a week, I think we can safely wrap it up. I gave it a reasonably close look myself to see how it read to a layman and had no concerns there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2017 (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) 13:07, 4 March 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.