Talk:Passenger pigeon/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 13:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As promised, I am happy to take this on. I have read through the article some time back and thought it was a good read, but didn't pay close enough attention to thoroughly check against the standard criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! As noted on your talk, I'm aware of the citation issues (such as bare urls and stuff like that), I'll fix those after everything else is fixed, as I really hate filling out citation templates, hehe... Also, this article may be a bit messy at places, since some old text and links not written or added by me have been kept, so I'm happy that you're giving them a critical look! FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I should also add that the "Recreation of the species" section is a bit of mess that I'll rewrite soon... FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is about right for an article of this size. At 62K, it looks at first glance to be comprehensive.

Cool, I'll add a bit on plumage colouration, though, as is customary for bird articles. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about the severity of extinction, as so many sources I looked at mentioned it, and it's also in the article body Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• The two clauses of the second sentence end "closest relative" and "closest relations"; could one be changed to avoid repetition?

Snipped. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Passenger pigeons were hunted by Native Americans, but hunting became intensified after the arrival of Europeans" - was that immediately after the establishment of Europeans in the early-mid 17th century, or sometime later?

Clarified, better? FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• The source Ecology and Management of the Mourning Dove needs specific facts cited to specific pages in order to be properly verifiable. I realise the entire book is about the topic, broadly speaking, but fact checkers shouldn't need to search for a needle in a haystack.

Done, the info was on a single page... FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• http://http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12158465#page/152/mode/1up would benefit from some formatting, the source is actually the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Several other archive.org sources have the same problem, we should give the full original citation as well as the URL to cope with link rot.

Done this for all journal urls. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• The source labelled "Ecology and Management of the Mourning Dove" needs more information

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The cladogram below follows a DNA study by Fulton et al., 2012" - who are "Fulton et al." in this context?

Added some names prior to this... FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• The Illinois Natural History Society sources require a login

Which ref is that? Can't see it, perhaps I've removed it since? FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't see it now either, so I guess it was refactored and removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• What makes http://etymonline.com/ and http://cooksinfo.com reliable sources?

Removed the first one (included it because it had a date of first usage, but not that important), but I can't find good sources that explain the Canadian pie thing... Perhaps [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] knows of something? FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I had a closer look - the site's main content can only be edited by a small number of staff, who have claims to be experts in their field. I was a bit twitchy given it claimed something reported to be true is in fact false, but it doesn't sound like a particularly extraordinary fact. I'll let it pass for now, just that if this goes to FAC it may be challenged. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

• The reference http://www.myaamiaproject.org/documents/costa_biblio/st_jerome_dictionary_costa.pdf appears to be dead

Found a working link. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• "There were also accidental records from Scotland, Ireland, and France, although these birds may have been escaped captives, or the records simply incorrect." - although this is sourced, is it likely that any passenger pigeons were genuinely recorded in Europe?

No recent sources seem to suggest that, and it is also pointed out that quite a large number of captive birds (350 by Audubon alone) were brought to Europe... FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Ecology and behavior

• "Such migrations, in flocks numbering billions, was a spectacle without parallel." - this sounds a bit too whimsical for an encyclopedia, could we tone it down a bit?

Toned down (was remnant text). FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Even today the passenger pigeon's historic population" - "today" tends to date, I assume "Even in the 21st century" or similar should suffice here?

Made more general, better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The species is estimated to have numbered three to five billion at the height of its population" - the source http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/779939pass.html claims six billion

That source is not used for that particular claim, as it is from 1986, more recent sources have been used for the 3-5 claim... FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The passenger pigeon was one of the most social land birds" - does this mean in the US or globally?

Added "all" in front of land birds. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The passenger pigeon's historic population is roughly the equivalent of the number of birds that overwinter in the United States every year in modern times" - "in the 21st century" would be more appropriate than "modern times" (assuming that's what the source says)

I made it "early 21st century" to be more specific, we don't know how it'll be in the future... FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "mainly persisting around 1/10,000 of the several billions estimated in the 1800s" - I don't think this is quite what the source (http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/06/humans-not-solely-blame-passenger-pigeon-extinction) says, though it does mention "the number of pigeons had fluctuated by up to 1000-fold during multiple population shrinkages and growths over the previous million years"

That is based on the other source at the end of the sentence, the actual study, I could remove the science mag ref entirely without any loss, but I was thinking it didn't hurt to let it stay... FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "their large numbers for an indefinite time, perhaps as little as a few nights, other times much longer periods" - this is a bit vague, we could rewrite this as "from a few days to ...." but I don't know what the typical maximum length of stay was in the source

No maximum is given, should I just leave it at "indefinite"? FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "the passenger pigeons packed so densely on branches at roosting sites that even thick ones often broke under their collective weight" - presumably "thick ones" refers to trees in this instance?

It refers to the thick branches/"limbs", should it be made clearer? I think I've heard of entire stems being broken, but I can't seem to find such claims in recent sources, maybe it's just hearsay... FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had a go at copyediting this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• "However, it is unknown how long a wild pigeon lived" - rather than "unknown", it would be better to say something like "undocumented" or "unrecorded"

Took "undocumented". FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "he bird is believed to have played a large ecological role" .... "With the sheer numbers in the flocks" .... "Due to these considerable influences" - I think this entire paragraph needs to be toned down

Toned down, enough? FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The pigeon could eat and digest 0.1 kg of acorns per day" - the source citing this could do with a little more information on where to find it - I don't think "JSTOR journals" is specific enough

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• The Utah University source documenting Columbicola extinctus certainly verifies its existence, but I couldn't see its relationship to the passenger pigeon, which is mentioned here

That info is in the other source used by the end of the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Relationship with humans

• "French explorer Jacques Cartier was the first European to report on passenger pigeons, finding them in abundance on Prince Edward Island during his first voyage in 1534" - the source given does not seem to explicitly mention Prince Edward Island

Removed location. FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Mark Catesby's 1731 illustration, the first published depiction of this bird, is somewhat crude." - crude in whose opinion?

According to at least two or three writers, I've added "according to later commentators", is it important to mention who exactly? FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• " The Birds of America .... now one of the most valuable books in the world" - I don't this is necessary, also "one of the most valuable" would be better replaced with specific figures (eg: one sold for $8M at auction according to the book's article)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Billing was perhaps not practiced by the bird either" - what does this mean?

Whoops, wrong place, must have put it there by mistake... FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/ a reliable source?

Removed and placed similar info elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• "a reward of $1,200 was offered for any proof of nesting" - the source says $3,000

Good catch, the two sources are contradictory, rewritten. FunkMonk (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• "attempts at making a rock dove foster passenger pigeon eggs." - I'm having difficulty loading the source for this, though it appears to be online

Works for me, it says "Although last ditch efforts were made to breed the few remaining passenger pigeons by Professor Charles O. Whitman at the University of Chicago and by the Cincinnati Zoo, breeding efforts (including cross-fostering passenger pigeon eggs with a rock dove Columba livia) were insufficient to sustain the small captive population (Deane 1908, Herman 1948)." FunkMonk (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• As stated above, the "Recreation of the species" subsection needs some work. eg: "spread across many institutions all over the world" - such as? The second paragraph in particular reads too much like a howto or list

I've now rewritten the section. The problem with mentioning specific museums, though, is on what grounds should they be mentioned? With hundreds of museums having multiple specimens each, it would be a bit arbitrary... Some institutions are also already mentioned in image captions, etc. The sources used for those sentences don't even list individual institutions, just cities and countries. FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if we don't have sources specifying anything then it's not a problem leaving that "many institutions" as is, since that's verifiable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Last survivors

• "The American Ornithologists' Union meeting in 1909...." - this sentence appears to be a close paraphrase of http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/critters/birds/passenger-pigeon.aspx

Changed, though being a US government site, the text is actually PD... FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary

Sorry, this is a bit of a long slog. I've gone through the article and I think this can meet the GA criteria once all the comments are addressed and the remaining work is completed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem, it's a long article, it's the holidays, and I'm a bit hungover anyway, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

All issues should be addressed, though I've left a few questions. Feel free to add any further comments (however esoteric) that would be relevant for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ritchie333, I've added some extra info by the end of "last survivors", not sure if it seems off topic... FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Furthermore, the pigeons that would raise the recreated passenger pigeons" - what does that mean?

The pigeons that would lay the eggs with passenger pigeon clones in them would be some other species of pigeon, with different methods of rearing than the passenger pigeon... Do you suggest different wording? I tried with "the parent pigeons that would raise the cloned passenger pigeons would belong to a different species"... FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've checked off everything else, and it's just the above comment left. I think my main thoughts for FAC is it needs a ornithology expert to confirm the information here is up-to-date and true, not just verifiable to sources. At 62K of prose, I don't think there's much more to add (at least without trimming down something elsewhere). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure the usual bird wikiproject suspects will show up at a FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well for now I can pass this, and we'll see what WikiProject birds make of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the thorough review, and happy new year, by the way! FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

And likewise. You've done plenty of my GAs, only fair to return the favour at long last! :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)