Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hoopoe starling/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) 04:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Hoopoe starling

edit
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This extinct bird is interesting but rather obscure, and a thorough review of its scattered literature has only been published this year, so it could finally get a proper article here. The article was recently copyedited thoroughly and became a GA. The choice of infobox image may seem odd, but it is the only known life drawing of this species, and also the only image we have that depicts the bird's crest accurately. Most other available images have some inaccuracies. FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

edit
  • I might bump up the extinciton date to the frist paragraph---it's the first thing I find myself wanting to know once it's mentioned that it's extinct.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sexual dimorphism is mentioned in the lead, but I don't see it in the body
It is covered (not by name) in the second paragraph under description, made it a bit clearer by adding the term. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sieur Dubois': that final "s" is most likely silent, so this should almost certianly be "Dubois's"
Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there no human populations on Réunion before the French? If not, ou might want to state so explicitly so people don't wonder about the native populations.
There was no native population, it had been visited before, but first permanent settlements were French. What if I say "all connected to activities of human settlers on Réunion"? Won't that make it clear that they weren't there before`? FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "settlers" sounds like "colonists", which doesn't make it clear the island was uninhabited. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't really say anything like what you request. How about the latest addition I made? "all connected to the activities of humans on Réunion, which it survived alongside for two centuries." Though it is not directly stated the islands were uninhabited before some date, I don't see how it could mean anything else. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the island of Réunion and proposed a new binomial, Fregilupus borbonicus: had the name of the island been changed at this time? It may not be immediately obvious that "borbonicus" refers to the earlier name for the island.
Sources about the bird don't say. Isn't it clear from the preceding "then called "Bourbon"? The name is also used in some of the quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a couple paragraphs earlier and in passing, and with the different spelling & pronunciation it could easily go over a reader's head. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should be clearer now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • to the starling family (Sturnidae),: I'm not confident I understand where to italicize and where not to---should "Sturnidae" be italicized?
No, only species and genus names. Family names and such are capitalised. FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the serial comma in some places and not in others.
Some of these were removed during copy editing, I fixed what I could find... FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The male was generally thought: or "is thought to have been", or has thought changed?
I modified it, but yeah, the problem is that there is no overview of which known specimens are male and female. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weighed 4 oz (113 g): I assume "4 oz" is a rounded figure; perhaps "113 g" should be rounded, too?
That's what the old account says, so I'm not sure if it should be changed? The secondary source just repeats it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, the sources say 4 oz (113 g)? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the part: "is four ounces [113 gr]" so the conversion seems to be added. How would you write it instead? FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's right in the source, then just leave it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • during [[austral summer]]: I might shorten this to [[austral summer|summer]] to the avoid repetition
Removed them, there are no articles about those subjects after all... By the way, what's with the reflinks? FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those were supposed to be <nowiki>...</nowiki>, but I goofed (now fixed). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • after the arrival of man: not a very 21st-century wording
"Humans"? FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • other recently-extinct birds: recent at the time, or recent today?
Both (as this species was one of the last to go extinct from the island), but "recently extinct" generally means something that went extinct within the last few centuries... FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That might not come across to the general reader (Wikipedia's target audience). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What if I just remove "recently"? Perhaps "now-extinct birds"? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "now-extinct" is fine. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments, will fix these soon... FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the first is just disambiguation, seems a bit arbitrary. Will change to hyphenated. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and no problem. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Added to file description, all dead more than 70 years ago. FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HalfGig

edit
  • "iris[disambiguation needed]" needs to be fixed
Fixed, these were added yesterday. FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

edit
  • I read this on my smartphone - saw a couple of minor things, only found one now, but others were trivial. pretty comprehensive. I am a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. Will look again to see what I missed ...hmmm..but looks fine.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, feel free to point out any issues. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Cas, did you have anything further to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just had another look...I can't see any deal-breakers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support and suggestion from Jim

edit

Support. You might want to consider explaining varius. 'varius L. varius various, diverse, variegated (variare to variegate). Jobling, James A (2010). The Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names. London: Christopher Helm. p. 399. ISBN 978-1-4081-2501-4.. FWIW, p 164 confirms your etymology of the genus name too. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

edit
  • American Committee for International Wild Life Protection 13: is that "13" really part of the name of the publisher?
Maybe some annual thing, I'll remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:CITE doesn't appear to require it, but it sure would be nice if you could give more specific page references for you sources. I'm thinking particularly of ref#2, cited 17 times to a 75-page article.
I'll try to make it more specific one of these days when I get the time. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Made it slightly more specific. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SandyGeorgia
  • ... and having more-curved beaks ... I'm not understanding why a hyphen is needed?
Done during copy eidt, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DATEOTHER, typically we would use 1726–27 intead of 1726–1727.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed a bunch. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samples only (I haven't read the article, just a quick flyover for MOS-y stuff). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks <unwatch>! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

edit

Comment I looked just at the lead section ... nothing for me to do. Good work. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maky

edit

I just have these three questions/issues. Otherwise, great article! – Maky « talk » 06:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments! FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bird was discovered during the 17th century..." – Technically early explorers probably "discovered" it (knew of its existence), but it was described or "discovered by science" during the 17th century. This is usually more of an issue when the lands are inhabited prior to Western exploration. I know it's nitpicking, but I feel it's good to get out of the habit of using that phrase.
Changed to "first mentioned", better? FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That or "described" is fine. Up to you. Better now. – Maky « talk » 07:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do quote boxes need to have the source spelled out (rather than just cited)?
You mean as in "until Sieur Dubois's 1674 account"? If that, then the cited source is not simply the same as the original account that is spelled out. The old account is reproduced in the cited source, so they are not the same... FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that when I look at a quote box (as I skim through an article), I wonder who wrote/spoke those words. However, it just dawned on me that you meet the requirement outlined at WP:QUOTE by giving that information in the sentence preceding the quote box. – Maky « talk » 07:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Slavery was abolished in 1848, which led to further cultivation of pristine areas..." – How did the abolishing slavery lead to further cultivation?
Because the former slaves began farming as well, I'll clarify this... FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! – Maky « talk » 07:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I feel this article merits FA status. – Maky « talk » 07:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia

edit

This is well-written, the sources look solid, and the formatting is good. I would like to see more author links in the References (Alfred Newton, Albert Günther, James Cowan Greenway, Julian P. Hume), but this is a minor quibble. My main concern is the lack of specific page citations, which both hampers verifiability and makes it difficult to check for close paraphrasing. Very nearly half of the article's citations are to "pp. 8–44" of Hume's 2014 monograph. Three other cites (Cheke, Amadon 1956, and Berger) also point to papers that are 40–80 pages long without specifying page numbers. Can we get these tightened up to cite specific pages or narrow ranges for relevant sections? Maralia (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can. But is it really needed for articles only cited once? In my FAC experience (15+ articles with this type of sources), journal articles are usually not cited this way, it is mainly for books. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but journal articles are usually not 50+ pages long! When they start approaching the size of books, we should perhaps consider otherwise. That being said, I'm fine with leaving these journal cites as is, since they are single-use and the statements are not controversial. My main concern is Hume, as it forms nearly half of the cites. Maralia (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to chime in, I thought about bringing this up, too... mostly because my past FACs have had this come up so often that I've started citing journals the same way I cite books. That's why my newer articles have a "Literature cited" section instead of a "Books cited" section. I've found it's also very helpful when citing video content so that people don't have to watch a full 30- or 60-minute interview to find the material I'm citing. With short references, it's up to the author. But with longer ones, it's best to cite the page to help those of us who either want to check your paraphrasing or want to find the material for our own research. – Maky « talk » 21:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'll break down Hume more one of these days, will try to get it done within this week. FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've split Hume further, better? FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 10 January 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/Hoopoe_starling/archive1&oldid=1138463137"