Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mascarene grey parakeet/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) 08:07, 8 August 2015 [1].
- Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This short article is about an obscure, recently extinct parrot, which lived alongside the dodo and other extinct Mascarene species. Most, if not all, scientific sources that deal with the bird have been cited and summarised here. As in other FAs about recently extinct species never described in life by scientists, contemporary accounts are quoted in the article, as little else is known about the animal. I have included a selfmade restoration of this parrot based on the sources, which is one of the few (I only know of three others) ever made that depict it. FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the size of the first engraving. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Made it 300px, too much? FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but I'd suggest using upright=1.2 or similar to scale it rather than fixing a pixel size. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. What exactly is the difference? FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the ability to set a default image size in our preferences. If you fix a pixel size, it overrides that preference entirely. If you use upright, it scales the image relative to the preferred size. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the ability to set a default image size in our preferences. If you fix a pixel size, it overrides that preference entirely. If you use upright, it scales the image relative to the preferred size. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. What exactly is the difference? FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but I'd suggest using upright=1.2 or similar to scale it rather than fixing a pixel size. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Made it 300px, too much? FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to take a look through.
- "Apart from their size and robustness, Holyoak did not find the bones to be distinct from those of the Mascarene parrot genera Lophopsittacus, Mascarinus (the Mascarene parrot), Necropsittacus (the Rodrigues parrot), and Psittacula (which had three other species inhabiting the Mascarene islands), and he considered them all to be closely related" The subject of the sentence is "the bones"; presumably you do not mean that he considered all of the bones to be closely related. Can I recommend splitting the point about the relatedness of the genera into a separate sentence?
- Split.
- "wide-beaked Mascarinus" Why "wide-beaked"? Do you mean that the MGP could have been a wide-beaked form/taxa of Mascarinus? If so, I think this needs to be clearer. It currently reads that this was possibly a small form of N or a small form of M, but I'm not clear where the wide-beaked comes into it.
- Changed to: "or a wide-beaked form of Mascarinus". FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The way the text is sandwiched between the taxobox and the engraving is possibly problematic; also, I'm not keen on the way the range map shows only one of the two islands.
- The engraving was originally smaller, but it was requested above that I make it larger. Personally, I don't think it's much of a problem, though I do prefer to use standard thumb sizes. As for the range map, I can try to make a new one, though I haven't been able to find a free high resolution map of the Mascarenes... FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have spaced out the taxonomy text a bit more and moved the engraving down, which gives a bit more "air" between it and the taxobox (less text is "sandwiched" now), better? FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The engraving was originally smaller, but it was requested above that I make it larger. Personally, I don't think it's much of a problem, though I do prefer to use standard thumb sizes. As for the range map, I can try to make a new one, though I haven't been able to find a free high resolution map of the Mascarenes... FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "from the Mare aux Songes swamp" It'd be good to be clear which island this is on
- Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "No live or dead Mascarene grey parakeets are known to have been exported. An unidentified brown parrot specimen housed in Cabinet du Roi was described by Comte de Buffon in 1779. Hume has suggested the possibility that this might have been a discoloured old Mascarene grey parakeet, if not a lesser vasa parrot (Coracopsis nigra). The specimen is now lost.[7][9]" Could this perhaps be rephrased a little?
- I merged the last dangling sentence into the second one, not sure if you had more in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How about something like "While no live or dead Mascarene grey parakeets are known with certainty to have been exported, Hume has suggested that a brown parrot specimen—once housed in Cabinet du Roi but now lost—may have been a discoloured old Mascarene grey parakeet, or perhaps a lesser vasa parrot (Coracopsis nigra). This specimen was described by Comte de Buffon in 1779."?
- Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How about something like "While no live or dead Mascarene grey parakeets are known with certainty to have been exported, Hume has suggested that a brown parrot specimen—once housed in Cabinet du Roi but now lost—may have been a discoloured old Mascarene grey parakeet, or perhaps a lesser vasa parrot (Coracopsis nigra). This specimen was described by Comte de Buffon in 1779."?
- I merged the last dangling sentence into the second one, not sure if you had more in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Alexandrine parakeet has been proposed as the founder population for all Psittacula species on Indian Ocean islands, during southwards colonisation from its native South Asia." It wasn't proposed while colonising
- Changed to "may have been", better?
- A bit, but it's still not clear what happened "during" the expansion; how about something like "islands, with original populations settling during the species's southwards colonisation from its native South Asia"? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Took your suggestion, but changed "original" to "new". FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A bit, but it's still not clear what happened "during" the expansion; how about something like "islands, with original populations settling during the species's southwards colonisation from its native South Asia"? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "may have been", better?
- "mandibular symphysis was 2.7-2.9 mm (0.10-0.11 in) thick along the mid-line, the palatine was 31.1 mm (1.22 in), and the tarsometatarsus was" Undefined jargon
- Explained in parenthesis under description, but all terms are linked already in taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry; if they're already linked earlier, don't add explanations on my account. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Explained in parenthesis under description, but all terms are linked already in taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel there's a little bit of inconsistency in the article about whether it definitely inhabited both islands
- Anywhere especially? It is considered Psittacula cf. bensoni for now, since it can't be confirmed they were the same species until bones are found on Réunion. This is not explained as such in the source, as the author probably assumed it would be stating the obvious. It would probably be helpful if I added something like "Until subfossils of P. bensoni are found on Réunion, it cannot be confirmed whether the grey parrots of the two islands belonged to the same species", but again, the source does not say this specifically. I have rejigged a bit of text at the end of taxonomy which might make it a bit clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found an article which states "Psittacula aff. bensoni — dubois (1674) and Cossigny (1732–55) mentioned a grey parrot on Réunion, which may have been conspecific with P. bensoni. However, no skeletal remains have been found to determine its relationships."[2] May that be enough to source the sentence I proposed above? FunkMonk (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For my money, yes. That would be a useful addition to the article, especially as the article's so recent. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For my money, yes. That would be a useful addition to the article, especially as the article's so recent. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found an article which states "Psittacula aff. bensoni — dubois (1674) and Cossigny (1732–55) mentioned a grey parrot on Réunion, which may have been conspecific with P. bensoni. However, no skeletal remains have been found to determine its relationships."[2] May that be enough to source the sentence I proposed above? FunkMonk (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Anywhere especially? It is considered Psittacula cf. bensoni for now, since it can't be confirmed they were the same species until bones are found on Réunion. This is not explained as such in the source, as the author probably assumed it would be stating the obvious. It would probably be helpful if I added something like "Until subfossils of P. bensoni are found on Réunion, it cannot be confirmed whether the grey parrots of the two islands belonged to the same species", but again, the source does not say this specifically. I have rejigged a bit of text at the end of taxonomy which might make it a bit clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "the arrival of man" We should probably try to avoid this kind of gendered language
- Changed to humans. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "[Pteropus sp.]" If you're meaning to refer to multiple species, I think it would be "[Pteropus spp.]"
- In this case, I think it means that the exact species meant isn't identifiable, as there are several types it could have referred to. The source doesn't elaborate... FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "them being excessively hunted" "excessively" is a value judgement which doesn't belong here. "Extensively" may be preferable, but there are other options- you could explain that you specifically mean hunted at unsustainable levels.
- Is "overhunted" better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It still sounds judgmental. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm concerned we might get too far away from what the sources say, though, all use terms like "overhunting", "excessive hunting", etc., and are not shy on laying blame. After all, humans really are some destructive bastards... FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Both "excessive hunting" and "overhunting" imply that both that there is some amount of hunting that is "OK", and that this hunting exceeded that amount- this involves value judgements, and so is not something that should be said in Wikipedia's neutral voice. (To drift closer to my own corner of real-world work, some anthropocentric and/or contractarian accounts could hold that any amount of hunting is unproblematic as long as it does not impact humans, meaning that this was arguably not overhunting, while some animal rights approaches could hold that no amount of hunting is acceptable, and as "excessive hunting" and "overhunting" presuppose that there is some level of acceptable hunting, they will be rejected.) If you're opposed to "extensive", you could say "unsustainable"; both seem relatively value-free. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Used extensive. I thiought I had replied here yesterday, but apparently not... FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Both "excessive hunting" and "overhunting" imply that both that there is some amount of hunting that is "OK", and that this hunting exceeded that amount- this involves value judgements, and so is not something that should be said in Wikipedia's neutral voice. (To drift closer to my own corner of real-world work, some anthropocentric and/or contractarian accounts could hold that any amount of hunting is unproblematic as long as it does not impact humans, meaning that this was arguably not overhunting, while some animal rights approaches could hold that no amount of hunting is acceptable, and as "excessive hunting" and "overhunting" presuppose that there is some level of acceptable hunting, they will be rejected.) If you're opposed to "extensive", you could say "unsustainable"; both seem relatively value-free. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm concerned we might get too far away from what the sources say, though, all use terms like "overhunting", "excessive hunting", etc., and are not shy on laying blame. After all, humans really are some destructive bastards... FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It still sounds judgmental. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "overhunted" better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The French began" Could you be more specific? French soldiers? Settlers? Explorers?
- Added settlers. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "but since they were last mentioned by Cossigny in 1759 (published in 1764), they must have become extinct shortly after this time." That's a very strong-sounding claim
- Changed to "had probably". FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from Josh, unless I've missed something. Very interesting article; you've done a good job with relatively limited literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from Jim I can't find anything significant I object to, great job, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to do a source review, but here I am with almost nothing to suggest in the way of improvements - all the sources are consistently cited using the {{cite}} template and variants thereof, page numbers are given where available, and every source has a functional hyperlink. My one quibble is that the books cited are not consistent in their ISBNs; some use ISBN-10, others use the newer ISBN-13. I'd suggest converting them all to ISBN-13; there's a tool here that will calculate the ISBN-13 for you from the older version. The Hume (Zootaxa) citation also needs an ISBN adding (it's 978-1-86977-124-9 for the online edition). Beyond that, everything looks good on the sources front. Yunshui 雲水 08:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, the isbns should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me. Based on the source review and a read-through of the article (nice job, btw!), I'll throw my support into the ring as well. Yunshui 雲水 08:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me. Based on the source review and a read-through of the article (nice job, btw!), I'll throw my support into the ring as well. Yunshui 雲水 08:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- On comprehensiveness and prose....Support
Commentstaking a look again now...(read this awhile ago on my phone and forgot to post anything!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only query I have is using the word "parakeet", which I always viewed as antiquated and colloquial as it is used for such a disparate range of psittacines and mainly in old texts (in Australia anyway). But not a huge deal-breaker as it may be more of an issue with Australian readers only.- You mean in the intro? I can replace that with parrot. Or are there more instances you find iffy? FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, just that one. All good then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, just that one. All good then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean in the intro? I can replace that with parrot. Or are there more instances you find iffy? FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2015 (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) 08:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.