Template:Did you know nominations/Raphinae

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Statements in the article aren't consistent with what I see in the cited sources.

Raphinae

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Raphinae, a clade of flightless birds (dodo pictured), became extinct through hunting by humans and predation by introduced non-native mammals?

• Reviewed: Not a self-nomination

Improved to Good Article status by Reid,iain james (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 23:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

• I suggest ALT1: ... that a clade of flightless birds called Raphinae (dodo pictured), became extinct as a consequence of overhunting by humans and introduction of non-native predators? IJReid (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for providing the ALT1 hook, which I think is better than mine. I strike out the original hook, supporting ALT1 instead. Oceanh (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• It is completely inappropriate for you to be reviewing your own article, IJReid, and even more to be approving it. Please don't ever add a tick to your own article again. (Supplying alternate hooks is fine.) New, independent reviewer needed to give this nomination a full review. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, but is this article/hook about the extinction of the dodo? The article's so confusing and jargon-laden that I can't even tell. EEng (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The most interesting hooky fact I could see was this - let the reader find out the name of this pigeon... Victuallers (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• (alt2)... that analysis of the existing members of the Raphinae group of birds has identified the dodo's nearest living relative (pictured)?

Article was recently promoted to GA status, making it eligible for DYK. The article is well supported by reference citations and I did not find close paraphrasing from the sources that I spot-checked. It's a bit heavy on scientific terminology, and I've made a few minor edits to make it a bit more understandable, but I don't consider the use of scientific terms to be excessive. However, I do have some concerns about assertions in the article that don't seem to be fully supported by cited sources (see below).

The ALT1 hook is in the article and is supported by reference citations, but I find the ALT2 hook far more interesting for DYK.

Although I like the ALT2 hook, I had to strike it because it isn't supported. Not only are there are no existing members of the Raphinae, but it's presumptuous to suggest that there is a firm conclusion regarding their nearest relative. The wording of sentence in the article that states Osteological and molecular data has since led to the dissolution of the family Raphidae, and the dodo and solitaire are now placed in their own subfamily, Raphinae[d], in the family Columbidae conveys far more certitude than I find in the sources I've been able to access. It appears to me (particularly from the Google Books preview of the Parish book) that several different researchers have reached slightly different conclusions from different lines of evidence, and there is no consensus yet. Additionally, the source cited for that sentence, Janoo 2005, has a free online abstract that states that the raphids cannot be considered a separate family and are now included in the Columbidae, but it does not mention either the solitaire or the subfamily, as I would expect if the article were an authoritative source regarding this new classification. Another statement in the article that bothers me is The "Réunion solitaire", long considered a third extinct didine bird, has turned out to be an ibis; it is now known as Threskiornis solitarius. The linked article about the ibises did not identify "ibis" as a taxonomic group, and when I looked up the letter in Nature that is cited as the source for that statement, I find that researchers who studied traveler's reports of this bird wrote "We think that ... [the bird] was probably the extinct Reunion ibis" and "we propose to designate it as Threskiornis solitarius." The article diverges too far from the source, IMO.

The image license is OK. Based on the article and my reading in Parish, I suggest the following as an appropriate hook -- but the article would need to be revised so that it doesn't sound like Janoo 2005 has had the last word on the taxonomy of these birds:

• ALT3 ... that studies of the Raphinae suggest the Nicobar pigeon (pictured) may be the dodo's nearest living relative? --Orlady (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for a thorough review. I am not an expert on cladistics, and definitely not updated on the latest research in the field. Actually, I am not so enthusiastic about alt2/alt3, presenting the dodo's "nearest relative" (whatever that means), neither as alt2 nor vaguely as in alt3. Maybe "more interesting", but indeed somewhat speculative. Also pinging @Reid,iain james, in case they would like to comment on this issue. Oceanh (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I will comment, sorry about being slow. I do not think that the image of the Nicobar pigeon should be used in the DYK. The Dodo paiting might be recognized by some laymen, so it would be a better image. Other alternatives would be the comparisons between the skeletons of the Dodo and Rodrigues solitaire, their skulls, or a specimen photo of the dodo. Some time soon we might have to move the article to Raphini, because Gourinae is an already existing subfamily for their group, but has only been recognized informally as containing Raphines. I personally think a hook about their extinction is more interesting than their phylogeny or description, mostly because they survived until so recently, and in the future might be one of a few extinct animals cloned. People might not know about the Nicobar pigeon or Crowned pigeon, which makes mentioning them more likely to interest them in the birds rather than the subfamily, which isn't so bad I think but I'm not sure it's recommended. Also, the only studies finding the phylogeny of Raphinae were (A) by the same author and not extremely inclusive, or (B) not published formally. Just my two cents. IJReid (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been asked to revisit this review, but I don't see anything to revisit yet because nothing has been done to address my concerns about the article. (The only edits to the article in the last 4 weeks were done by me.) I am still concerned that statements in the article aren't consistent with what I see in the cited sources. --Orlady (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I have modified the first sentences in the Phylogeny section to make them less conclusive. Without access to the book by Parish, and not full access to Naish' 2014 review of this book, I can therefore not evaluate these sources. Else, I would like to point to a study by Wagele et. al. from 2009, regarding the confidence of molecular phylogenies justified with reference to 'statistical' support, which they claim often seem to be unfounded. Will therefore repeat my previous concerns about using phylogenetic "facts" for the hook. Oceanh (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)