Talk:White swamphen

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:White swamphen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 11:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Will start review soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, you're on a GA-reviewing roll! FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I guess :) However, this is not a GA, it is a FA. But I will try to find some nitpicks anyway. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding language, the connection between subsentences can sometimes be improved, especially when the connection is a simple "and". (This says a non-native speaker, so take it carefully) Example: The length of the Lord Howe swamphen has been given as 36 cm (14 in) and 55 cm (22 in), and it was similar to the Australasian swamphen in size. – What about "making it similar to the Australasian swamphen in size"? The reason: "and" for me implies a separate bit of information without strong relation to the previous, but what follows is actually the same information in different guise.

Agreed, took your suggestion. See anything else like this? I'm of course not a native speaker either, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• and the lengths of the secondary and wing covert feathers relative to the primary feathers distinguish it from other species – this sentence could be easily made more useful by stating if the lengths of these feathers are greater or smaller compared to other species.

This is presumably what the latter part of the sentence does by saying "these features appear to have been intermediate between purple swamphens and the takahē", but I found the source to be pretty vague. Unfortunately, I don't have the source which the one I used paraphrases yet (it is requested at the resource request, Ripley 1977[1]), so I can't do much interpretation of it... Which is the main thing holding me from taking it to FAC, but it will take some time before I can do that anyway, since Dilophosaurus is still there. I also can't figure out who first claimed it could be found on Ball's Pyramid, but that may be in the other requested source... FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

We have that book in our university library, and I need to go there anyway next week; I can take a look for it! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great! FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• The Vienna specimen is a cabinet skin with its legs outstretched, but van Grouw and Hume suggested that Stone's 1790 illustration showed its original mounted pose. – I do not fully understand this sentence. How do the two parts of the sentence fit together? Does it mean that it used to be mounted but was later dismounted, same as in the Liverpool specimen? Why not put this information to the Taxonomy section (where the same thing for the Liverpool specimen is discussed? Isn't Stone's depiction also showing rather stretched limbs, or what exactly do you mean with "outstretched"?

Study skins of birds

I've changed it to "study skin" (which possibly makes it more clear), as it is meant to convey that the specimen is not mounted anymore, but is in an outstretched pose that makes it easy to study, as in the photo on the right. I've also added "(not a taxidermy mount)" to make the distinction clearer. When it happened isn't known, so I felt it was more relevant with the text about its present condition (as below). FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I can't help but think that parts of the last paragraph of the description might be better go into the Taxonomy section or somewhere else. This paragraph seems a bit out of place. Also: What is exactly the significance of how the birds are mounted for the appearance of the species? Does that tell something about the actual life appearance?

I gave this some thought, and was originally going to place it under taxonomy. But since some of it is relevant to historical interpretation of how the bird physically looked, in ways that are not really relevant to taxonomy, I felt it made most sense in that section. Especially since it comes after a detailed physical description of each specimen. And I felt that it was best to group all the info about the condition of the specimens rather than splitting it to different sections. Most of it would look out of place under taxonomy, which doesn't really go into detail about physical features. But maybe it would look less detached from the rest of the section if it came before the quote? I tried that. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Just some idea: What about splitting the taxonomy section into a section about the discovery, sightings, and description and discussion of the two specimens, followed by a taxonomy section which is more focused on the actual taxonomy? Might help to get the information in a clearer order, and may help the reader to understand where to look for what. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The way the taxonomy section is currently written (chronologically) makes it a bit difficult to split, since most statements from each author is grouped together regardless of subject. This is also why I didn't make a separate evolution section, which I otherwise usually do. But I'll see what I can do if reviewers bring out their pitchforks at FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Section behavior and ecology: The Lord Howe swamphen was similar in size to the Australasian swamphen – this was already stated earlier.

This was changed during the copy-edit; re-added "though" at the beghinning, to show this is connected to the latter part of the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thats it, very interesting and well-done article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I feel I owe the bird project to do bird articles once in a while, since that's where I began with FACs... FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I am going to pass it now, congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again! Hope to see a certain three-horned lizard here soon too! FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Species authority

Hi, Aa77zz, you recently changed[2] the species authority with an edit summary referring to IOC 13.2. I think these details should be explained in prose too, as they now contradict what is written there, but I can't find the sources used to justify it. Any pointers? FunkMonk (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

FunkMonk I apologise for that. I've now revised the text and added some references. I'm sure that my text could be improved.

There seems to be general agreement that the binomial name (and perhaps also the text of the appendix) is by Shaw. For Shaw as the authority see IOC 13.2 here, Clements v 2023 here and H&M4 (Dickinson & Remsen 2013) here.

H&M4 p. 160 Note 10 contains the text: "Scientific names in White's Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales were not his but Shaw's: see Schodde in Schodde & Mason 1997 [2268]". Reference 2268 is Schodde & Mason 1997 that I've added to the article. The white swamphen is not included in the book but Shaw's contribution is discussed in the entry for the Little lorikeet which I can see on Google books pp 127-128 here.

Nelson 1998, which I've cited in the article, can be accessed through the Wikipedia Library. Page 170 includes the text: "It is most unlikely that White himself devised any of the Latin binomials although he may have provided English descriptions which the subeditors—Smith (botany) and Shaw (birds and other animals)—incorporated into the text."

In the article I've changed the page number and the link to White's book. The previous (broken) link was to some ocr'ed text on the University of Sydney's website. I think it is much better to link to a scan of the book itself on the BHL website.

- Aa77zz (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll double-check the new text soon. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it looks good, Aa77zz, but shouldn't the authority of the alternative combinations that use the original specific name be changed to Shaw too, then? Anyhow, it seems kind of odd that one would credit someone for providing the name rather than the author of the publication itself, which is otherwise customary? FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

FunkMonk: Yes of course - the protonym should be credited to Shaw. I hadn't unhidden the list of Synonyms. I've changed White to Shaw for the original combination and also added links for the authorities. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the fixes. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)