Talk:Réunion swamphen

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 13:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk. There is, IMO, too much use of long quotations to pass MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". I'll let you come back to me on this before I go any further. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, considering past FACs about extinct birds that are also mainly known from old accounts, such as Rodrigues solitaire, Lesser Antillean macaw, Mascarene grey parakeet, Réunion ibis (which was TFA a few days ago), and so on, which also extensively used contemporary quotes to support the text, the consensus has mainly been in favour, or it wasn't even brought up. Practically all sources about these birds include such quotes (from 19th century to recent sources), because it is often all that is known about them in life. As for Wikipedia, any summary would lead to a good deal of original interpretation, since the account can be ambiguous, and there would be very little article left if we didn't use the quotes (but note not all known accounts have been used here, only the ones with unique info). Reviewers have said it adds flavour to the articles, but there have of course also been a few who scoffed at the quotes at first, but they were always won over, and I have cut out some quotes if they were particularly repetitive. Since all of the quotes are centuries old, copyright shouldn't be a problem, except those which are recent translations, but they are few (many translations were first published in the 19th century) and mainly short. Commentary of the quotes by researchers have also been added where available. Especially in this article, which is about a bird where nothing is known except for the old accounts (and anything else that can be written about it is taxonomic history and later speculation about behaviour), the quotes are essential in my view. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That said, two more quotes were just added to the passenger pigeon article, by someone who did not take part in the FAC pocess, and I think it is becoming excessive there, though all the quotes are PD. So of course feel free to point out if there are quotes you find particularly redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• That's odd. I commented a while ago and it has disappeared. Must have got caught in an edit clash. Anyway, use of quotes is not within the MoS criteria to check in a GAN and it is not extensive enough to worry the prose criterion, so I shall move on. (However, if I were reviewing this at FAC, I am not sure that "We've always done it this way, so we can ignore the MoS" would fly.) Nice to be looking at a Réunion bird again.

Well, I do intend to take it to FAC, so we might just take up the discussion now? As I read the MOS on this issue, it is an open-ended and very vaguely worded guideline, since "too many quotes" is subjective, and there is no apparent copyright issues here. Then it comes down to "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words", and that's where I think this is a non-standard case. Of course, there is no point in using extensive quotes when something is well-known and covered by multiple sources in different words (in an article about, say, a sparrow). But in this case, those quotes are literally all that is known about this species, and the cited literature also prefers to give the quotes (in full or abbreviated) rather than paraphrasing them (see the Hume & Cheke sources, Olson, Rothschild, Strickland, etc.). These authors gave the quotes in full, then analysed and interpreted them, emphasising that no one can really know exactly what these original accounts meant, and that they are ambiguous on many points, having been written by sailors rather than scientists. Therefore, in this sense, I am following the style of the relevant literature, instead of making up my own summaries/interpretation of the accounts which would border on OR. And it is seventeen or so previous successful FACs that follow this style which have been scrutinised by many editors, so I do consider it a time-tested approach. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• "File:Canterbury Museum, Christchurch - Joy of Museums - South Island Adzebill.jpg" creates a bad sandwich, could you drop it a paragraph.

You mean with the taxobox? Wouldn't the same occur if it was taken a paragraph down, just worse, because it would be level with the map? FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, I tried it out, but it doesn't make less sandwiching. Usually it isn't taken as a problem to have a photo left of a taxobox, so maybe it can just be left for FAC to see if anyone complains. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I've had a go. Revert if it doesn't work for you

I don't see the difference in regard to sandwiching on my screen, a minor thing now, so might return to it during FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• "the lack of any physical evidence of it existence." its

Ugh, not sure what happened there, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• "though reluctantly." This might be better expressed as 'though it did so reluctantly'.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• "as other swamphens". Add 'did' for clarity?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• "and supported that it was a Porphyrio relative". Maybe → 'and supported it being a Porphyrio relative'?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• "while making notice of". Do you mean 'taking note of'?

Yeah, in the sense that he brought attention to them, since they had not been discussed before. I tried "made note of", does that sound right? FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep.

• "(0.99–1.12 mi)". Imperial measurements units for altitude are feet.

Ah, nice point, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It gave me a giggle, mostly because it reminded me so much of the kind of things I do.

• "The Oiseaux bleuff live in the plaines on top of the mountains". Is "plaines" misspelt in the original translation?

I assume it is retaining the French spelling for some reason, as it does with the bird's French name (bleuff also seems to be an archaic spelling). The English article for the area, Plaine des Cafres, also uses the French spelling. FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• "alongside other now-extinct birds". There is a difference between now-extinct and no longer endemic on; eg the echo parakeet.

Yeah, the local subspecies of echo parakeet is extinct, though, which is why the more specific name "Réunion parakeet" is used instead of echo here. Also why I say "extinct birds" instead of "extinct bird species", to avoid being too specific. FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Quibbler!

• "it was considered good game". Does that mean that it was considered good to hunt, or considered good to eat? (Or both.)

That would be both, hence that choice of word (and link). Game birds are hunted both for the sport of it, but they are of course eaten afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that; but if that is what you mean, how about 'it was considered to be good hunting and good eating'? [Not an issue which will hold up GA.]

• Does Dubois have an OCLC? Several other works are missing identifiers.

The older works are of course from before isbn and all that kind of stuff. How would I find OCLCs? FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The only identifier I could find for that source is from the gallica website: "ark:/12148/bpt6k1027018" Not really sure what format that is or how to add it... But I added a citation to the 19th century English translation of the work, which has a doi. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

WorldCat is your friend. Scroll down for the OCLC.

And that is all I have. Well up to your usual high standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll start fixing tomorrow. Do you, by the way, think this could need a copy edit? Because I've had it listed for one and it is almost near the end of the queue, but perhaps it is not needed after your suggestions have been implemented. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

After seeming to touch a sore point with the quotations I have tried to assess at (or maybe a little above) GAN level, so you wouldn't feel that there was a pile-on or machine gun assault. If it is going to FAC I do feel that a copy edit would help. It's mainly picky, semi-subjective things around the difference between " clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct" and "engaging and of a professional standard". It may be me being over picky, but if it is near the front of the queue I think it worth seeing what GoCE think.

Quotations: I think FAC would be a better venue. I don't think that this is a question of (just) what thee and me think, but something for the community. I find your arguments cogent, but not fully persuasive. (I may find them more so after further mulling; others may find them more persuasive.) This seems to me to be the sort of issue that FAC is there to resolve.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't feel like you have to hold back! I always nominate GAs with the end goal being FAC, so any nitpicking at this stage is more than welcome. The only GA I never took further was Martinique macaw, which I think simply doesn't have enough text about the subject itself, since very little has ever been written about it specifically... As for the quotations, personally I've long been fascinated by them and how they have been used to piece together somewhat coherent pictures of almost mythological species (like the dodo), and I still like reading them (especially those in archaic English), while looking at the images based on them, and I believe many readers would feel the same. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk: quotations: I am not in any way saying that I disagree with that, or that it would not be my personal preference. There are lots of bits of the MoS that I disagree with, either in general, or in specific cases; but I grit my teeth and apply them if I want an article to go above GA. If we are to consistently disregard a chunk of the MoS in a specific set of circumstances, then I think it helpful that the community agree that we should and that the boundaries of those circumstances be clearly laid out.

Copy edit: I would be happy to copy edit it myself, post-GAN, on my usual 'revert anything you don't like, I'm not that bothered, I'm only the copy editor' basis. But if you prefer in this case to have some other GoCE editor that is (obviously) your call.

Could you clarify if you have finished addressing my GAN comments, or if you have still to look at the six bullet points you haven't individually responded to. Ta.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm writing now from work (my boss is currently away), so I will have time for fixing the issues tonight when I get home, and will of course notify you when it's done. And you're very welcome to do the copy edit, won't be too much work since a good chunk of the articles is quotes anyway, hehe... As for MOS, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is also part of the guidelines... FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• All points should now be fixed or commented on. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Stick the missing OCLCs or whatevers in and its done and I'll start a copy edit.

Should now be added to the old book sources without isbns. I was quite surprised that a book from 1848[1] had both an isbn and a doi, now added too. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

And I have wrapped up the rest for you. Promoting. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Copy edit queries

Apologies for taking so long to get round to this.

• "The last definite account of the bird is that of the priest Brown": I assume that his first name is not known?

The sources only refer to him as Père Brown... As in Father Brown. I've added it for now, though it seems titles should usually not be used here, but what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Umm. Maybe Father Brown at first mention, and plain Brown thereafter?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Many terrestrial rails are flightless, and island populations are particularly vulnerable to man-made changes; as a result, rails have suffered more extinctions than any other family of birds." Personally I would put a citation after this, even if it is a duplicate.

Done, though it is the same citation twice in a row, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• If 'twere me I would reduce the last quote to "There are also some curious birds, which never descend to the sea-side, and who are so little accustomed to, or alarmed at, the sight of man, that they suffer themselves to be killed by the stroke of a walking stick." and include anything else of note which you have not already mentioned (not much) in your earlier description of the Plaine des Cafres. This is quite aside from the MoS. Just a passing comment; we can debate it more fully at FAC.

I have reduced some parts that I thought unnecessary, but I retained the part about the brook, because I think it's interesting to note there were water bodies there which the bird could have used, as well as the part about it being elevated and hard to reach, which also gives context for how it could have worked as a last refuge for the bird. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Overhunting was the main cause of its extinction (it was considered good game and was easy to catch), but according to Cheke and Hume, the introduction of cats at the end of the 17th century would have led to the elimination of the bird once these became feral and reached its habitat." This sentence seems to be suggesting two different "main causes" for the bird's extinction.

The source says "Its extinction was due to overhunting and perhaps cat predation, being last recorded in 1730 but possibly persisting until the 1760s" So I have changed the text to " the introduction of cats at the end of the 17th century could have contributed to the elimination of the bird". FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Minimal changes needed. Revert or further amend at will. Looks about ready for FAC to my untutored eye. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, there was no rush, so it's fine you took your time. I won't nominate it until Limusaurus has gotten a bit further anyway. I have also replaced the photo under behaviour, as it shows a more uniformly coloured swamphen species that may look more similar to this one. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That all looks good. We three shall meet again, at FAC! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough look-through! I think I'll nominate when (if) Limusaurus gets its second support. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)