Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frigatebird/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 15:29, 16 July 2015 [1].

Frigatebird

edit
Nominator(s): Aa77zz & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two of us have buffed this article up over time. We feel it looks pretty good and is within striking distance of FA status, so have at it. We'll try and fix stuff double-quick. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oops, yes it is (I was still on autopilot expecting a bot to do that) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Fregata_distribution.png: possible to provide a more specific citation for this data?
I don't have the book but the distribution map is also available from the publisher's web site and I've added an external link to that. Aa77zz (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:I'm unsure about the license for this photograph. It was published in 1935 in a self-published French book by Stephen-Chauvet. His dates are 1885-1950. The author thanks the British Museum for the photograph and there is a BM logo on the ruler included in the original plate. I've looked in the British Museum database and there is only one possible entry here. Unfortunately the BM doesn't give a photograph to confirm that the object is the same. It doesn't appear to be on display - otherwise I could visit the museum and take my own photograph (I live in London). The BM entry gives the date as: "18thC(late)- 19thC(early)". The object is thus almost certainly very old but who owned the copyright of the photograph - the author of the book or the British Museum? The author died 65 years ago. Aa77zz (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is he thanking the BM for taking the photo and sending it to him, or allowing him to take a photo himself? The copyright of the photo would belong to the photographer. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the US copyright. We can request an image I see - I wonder if there is still a wikipedian in residence there? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this alternative photo, though the sourcing seems a bit weird: [2] Or this diagram: [3] FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That first one is from the same book I think, and there are problems. The second one is not as interesting, and not sure it would add much visual value to the article... sigh... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update - have removed image as discussion at Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/British_Museum#Getting_a_photo_of_an_object_in_storage....3F is suggesting still under copyright. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Routledge, 'The Mystery of Easter Island' publ.1920 - Bird-Men
Might be better to use an image of the petroglyphs of birdmen. The artwork is definitely out of copyright even if the photographs might not be, and more importantly whilst some if not most wooden objects are likely to be fake or post contact made for export the petroglyphs are legit. My own photos are in some drawer from the pre digital era, but there are others ϢereSpielChequers 12:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fake?! yikes what a controversy..that photo is indistinct (sorry). Might have a look for some others then... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

edit

Great article from two experienced editors, but of course a few nitpicks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • during breeding season—missing "the" or "their"?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''restrict their breeding habitat respectively to two small islands. —I can't see what "respectively" applies to here
I meant something like "to one small island each" so just changed it to that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe some more links, perhaps squid, tuna, kleptoparasite, jellyfish, plankton
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the frigatebirds to be less divergent than tropicbirds but more than pelicans related to a core group of gannets, darters and cormorants—I had to read this three times to make sense of it. "Related" is ambiguous here, with two meanings. Unless it's just me, it needs punctuating or rephrasing for clarity.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • in preference over the 1840 description—"preference to"
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, with their long wings, they would have great difficulty taking off again—not cause and effect as written. Albatrosses have even longer wings and they can take off. Maybe long wings relative to body weight?
tweaked, though to body size not weight Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the species has fidelity to the site they were born despite their high mobility—The… they… their
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
changed to "hatching" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth

edit

I plan to review this, and will make comments as I work through it. In general, it is very well written. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Evolutionary references classify Fregatidae ..." - What does this mean?
It sorta means the papers using cladistics, but it is pretty universal consensus-wise, so rewrote it thus Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last sentence of the lead, some of the frigatebird species common names have a definite article and some do not.
I've juggled with the definite articles. Are you happy with my changes? Aa77zz (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence starting "Three species have been described:", it would be nice to know where the Green River Formation and the Wasatch Formation are.
fixed - both western US Aa77zz (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same sentence, there are two juxtaposed phrases starting with "from" which jar.
these are hard to find substitute words or phrases that aren't ungainly themselves....nothing is coming to mind but it is late and I am tired here... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you need to include the phrase "from a recovered coracoid and humerus" at all. You didn't state which bits of bird were found in the other fossil species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok, removedCas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same sentence again, there is an implication that Ascension Island and Saint Helena are in the Pacific, which they are not.
specified Atlantic for Ascension and St Helena Aa77zz (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the species table, you give the sizes of some species and not other. I was intrigued by the great frigatebird being F. minor.
The use of minor is certainly confusing. The species was originally considered to be a small pelican. This is explained in the great frigatebird article. Aa77zz (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the great frigatebird section of the table, you need a Fahrenheit equivalent for the water temperature.
Fahrenheit added Aa77zz (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frigatebirds have markedly pneumatic bones, making them very light and contribute only 5% to total body weight." This sentence needs clarification.
added "(air-filled)" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood. It is the grammar of the sentence I dislike. The subject of the sentence is "frigatebirds" not "bones", and the whole sentence wants rejigging in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok, rejigged to align subjects now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the distribution section, you need some imperial equivalents for the metric distances.

Imperial distances added Aa77zz (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "frigatebirds have found ways to not overheat" - I would have said "not to overheat".
changed - but both versions sound acceptable to me. Aa77zz (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "particularly as they spend days on nests in full sunlight" - you probably mean "particularly as they are exposed to full sunlight when on the nest"
agreed and changed Aa77zz (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Nauru, catching frigatebirds was an important tradition. It is still practiced to a lesser degree." These two sentences could be combined. Is "practiced" spelt correctly?
  • "It is not now found on the island, and its incorporation into local ceremonies suggests it only vanished from there sometime in the 19th century up to the 1860s." - This sentence is a bit awkward.
I tried this - I figure I didn't have to clarify "now-vanished" as it has been discussed as widespread elsewhere in the article...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Aa77zz (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Maky

edit
  • "oldest fossil record"—it's nitpicking, I think "oldest fossils" sounds better. I guess I always read "fossil record" as defined at Fossil.
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the taxobox image, I suggest including the scientific name in parentheses.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under etymology, I recommend starting the etymology and then mentioning the other names after. When I read it, I wondered where everything was going. The point is: address the point, then visit your tangents.
paras switched - my only minor quibble is this is now less chronological...but see the idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it going both ways. But for me, at least, I favor addressing the subject first over chronology. If others disagree, you can switch it back. – Maky « talk » 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do a good job covering the synonyms in the body, but what about a quick list in the taxobox?
Umm...might be a bit tricky, as the name covers both family and genus...so do we do synonyms for both...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although not the most ideal FA to refer to, Ring-tailed lemur also deals with synonyms for both genus and species. With Ucucha, we used a slightly different approach at Pachylemur... though I'm not sure I like it now. If there are a lot of items in the list, it can be made collapsible. – Maky « talk » 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For note b, can you provide a translation in brackets following the quote?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you briefly describe "totipalmate"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was because the genus names..." – The last half of this sentence sounds like it played a role in the decision, rather than just being an outcome. Am I reading it wrong?
It did play a role - had the synonymisation happened after 1961, the family name would have been Tachypetidae. See chapter 8, Article 40 here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want, you can encase the cladogram in {{cladogram}} and use the "caption" parameter... but that's just a suggestion...
I futzed it when I tried rejigging...I give up :P Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change I suggested. (Don't worry, the syntax messes me up a lot, too. That's why I go back to other articles I've written and use existing work as templates.) Anyway, if you don't like it, please revert. – Maky « talk » 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "Bones of the left foot of Fregata aquila showing pectinate edge to mid claw, [43] a characteristic of the Suliformes.[44]" Why not cover this in the body and repeat without captions? I don't know... if I were looking for anatomical details, I would look in the appropriate sections, not in image captions.
am in two minds about this - there are lots of minor little bony things and this is just one example, so would not be significant enough to mention in text, but makes a nice caption. My co-nominator added it so will see what he says. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not responsible - the figure was added here. I would be happy to lose the figure as it adds extra complexity that I don't believe is necessary. Aa77zz (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be in favor of losing the image. However, if you do remove it, you might move it and the text to the Suliformes article. – Maky « talk » 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I have moved it to Suliformes - that would be the place where osteology can be discussed sometime...(aaah future chores...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • overlinking "totipalmate" & "gular pouch"
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "regularly travel to Johnston Atoll (873 km (542 mi))..." – can you pull the numbers out of the parentheses by saying "travel x km (x mi) to..."? Also, the rest of that sentence seems a bit run-on.
tweaked and split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the classification "least concern" or "Least Concern"?
capitalised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the article looks great. Looking forward to giving my support. – Maky « talk » 05:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The only point left is in regards to the synonyms, and that's not a reason to hold up the nomination. I'm happy to add my support. – Maky « talk » 19:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the article. Aa77zz (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Victoriaearle

edit

Non-science editor here with the smallest nitpicks.

  • "Classified in the genus Limnofregata, the three species had shorter less-hooked bills and longer legs, and lived in a freshwater environment." This sentence threw me off - I didn't know whether it referred to the fossils or not. The question is answered in the fossil section, so not sure it's actionable, but thought I'd mention it.
Yeah it does - added "of which" to clarify Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't a clue what totipalmate means?
It means all toes are connected by webbing between them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a few tiny tweaks; feel free to revert of disagree.
Tweaks look ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Support - Easy to read and interesting. Victoria (tk) 00:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
Thx!...and change is okay Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 14 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Frigatebird/archive1&oldid=859516830"