Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mauritius shelduck/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 September 2021 [1].

Mauritius shelduck

edit
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article in the series about extinct Mascarene birds. This one is a pretty obscure duck, which, like the rest, was exterminated by human activities. Not much has been written about it, so most if not all of it is summarised here. Some historical accounts are included for flavour, and because most of the sources give them in full. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support and minor comments from Chidgk1

edit

Condition - I trust you to add/improve the alt text

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any info why no DNA analysis?

Nothing yet. But will add if it ever happens, I suspect the DNA is too degraded. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea roughly when the Egyptian goose colonised the islands?

The sources don't say, but I elaborated a tiny bit, "stated in 2008 that the Mascarene shelducks were derived from Malagasy forms with African affinities, probably descended from the Egyptian goose after it had colonised the Mascarene islands". FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could add trans-title to French source

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Alopochen_mauritianus.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
No individual is credited, only Cambridge Engraving Company. So I've changed to PD UK anonymous, if that's sufficient. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per that tag, if you're going to use it you need to include information on what research was done to attempt to ascertain author. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added that I have looked throughout the journal and only found the company attribution. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The image was produced in 1670 by an unknown author on Dutch Mauritius, and accompanied a letter to the Dutch East India Company, from where it ended up in the Dutch National Archives. It was included in a 1995 UK book, but whether this is the date of first publication, or the date it was produced and sent, I'm not sure. So I'm not sure what this means for the copyright, if we assume it was unpublished until 1995, it would at leats be PD US it seems?[2] Not sure for the rest of the world, but if it is only PD US, it could be uploaded locally on English Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The unpublished provision is typically only extended to works that were never published before 2003. If this was published by 1995 at the latest, we'd need to look for another appropriate tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From these Commons guidelines[3][4], it would seem it is PD because just more than 25 years have passed since the publication in the EU (UK). But as far as I can see there is no appropriate tag for that? FunkMonk (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would you believe the US status to be in that case? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closest I can find is still PD-US-unpublished:[5] I can't seem to find other policies regarding unpublished works in the US? And it doens't seem we have specific tags for either the EU or US situations... Maybe I should ask around on Commons? FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - as mentioned, the US unpublished tag applies only for works not published before 2003, so wouldn't apply here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised the issue here:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got some answers, and I've added tags accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a PD-Art-two enclosing template. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks neat! FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim Comments from Jim

edit

I'll have a look after the bank holiday here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m surprised that we don’t get to see what it may have looked like until the final image. Even if you would rather have the bones in the infobox, I’d still move the image up. If it falls to me to list this at WP:TFA, I definitely think the reconstruction would be a better hook in the blurb than the bones.
This might be as confusing as the issues below, but when I first found the free version of the image in a 1997 journal article, it was listed as showing the related Réunion sheldgoose. So I originally added it to the article to just show a similar relative. But I since recognised the same image in the 2008 book Lost Land of the Dodo (also used as a source here), where it is captioned as showing the Mauritius sheldgoose... So I noted the two different identities in the Commons description, and just changed the caption here to reflect the newer, 2008 source, which is co-written by the artist. I can only speculate why the image has been used to show both, but in reality, we have no idea what the difference between the two species were, or if there were any. The IOC list even says of the Réunion species "Treated as conspecific with A. mauritiana by R. Roe (pers. comm.)", but we can't really cite unpublished comments...
So that is one reason why I didn't place it more prominently, another reason is that all we know are the bones, so anything but them are pure speculation, and the next most reliable imagery would then be the contemporary drawing, which is now under description. And since the restoration also shows the environment and another species from the area, I thought it would be appropriate in the section about ecology. As for showing what the species looked like earlier, the Egyptian goose image early on aready does that, since as you can see, the painting looks almost identical to it. But I agree, if this goes to the front page, the restoration will be more eye-catching. FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and placed in the shelduck genus Alopochen. — possibly misleading. The shelduck genus is Tadorna, and although it's in the same subfamily, Egyptian goose isn't normally described as a shelduck
Might be solved if the article is moved to sheldgoose, per below. But note that I brought the issue of shelducks/sheldgeese up here[7], and it seems to be a bit of a messy situation. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Réunion shelduck — redirects to Réunion sheldgoose, which hardly clarifies what counts as a shelduck
Yeah, this is is because many of our articles about these obscure species are not currently aligned with the IOC, and have to be moved. In the case of this article, checking the IOC list now[8], it may even have to be moved to Mauritius sheldgoose. I think I moved it to the current location because that was the IUCN name, which I thought would match the IOC name, but seems they're not aligned. But I know that it is preferred that articles are not moved during FAC... A bit of a messy situation. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One solution could perhaps be that I change all occurrences of "shelduck" to "sheldgoose in the article now, and then get the article title changed after the FAC? I'll ping Casliber, who might have some insight, being both an admin and a bird editor... FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I'm an admin and bird editor too, and I've just moved Margaretta Louisa Lemon to Etta Lemon in the middle of its ongoing FAC due to comments from a reviewer and my co-nominator, so it can be done, although it's less urgent here. However, pinging Cas will get a second opinion (and maybe another review...) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course, Cas' adminship may have come to mind because he has also helped with some move issues at the dinosaur project I think. But yeah, if it's fine to move it now, I'll be all for it (maybe it's at GAN where they don't want moves during nominations). FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • carpometacarpus wing-bone (part of the hand, the holotype specimen) — I might be misunderstanding here, but should it be part of the hand, and the holotype specimen?
Added "and". FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • English sailor Marshall — I'd expect to see a first name or rank here
All I could find was a first name, John, which I added, but the sources just call him sailor or visitor, so I called him "traveller"... FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence that the Mauritius shelduck and its extinct island relatives were flightless —Not quite the same as saying that they could fly. Do we know how they crossed the island in the dry season?
They most likely were just able to fly, but none of the sources state that outright, I guess it's assumed to be a given. The closest statement is the one given about them not being flightless. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This contemporary quoted text would indicate they could fly if they wanted to: "When they are being shot, the ones that are not hit by the hail stay put and do not fly away." But the sources don't comment or elaborate on it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, opened a can of worms, will respond to the rest soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind leaving the shelduck issue to after FAC, there are more things to change than you expect (like default sort), other wise happy to support, changed above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, we'll return to it later then... FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

Taking a look now.....

The holotype carpometacarpus of the Mauritius shelduck has a very projecting alular metacarpal' - "very projecting" is an odd-sounding construction in English - needs rewording
Tried with "strongly", "very" is how the source put it. It's by French authors, so perhaps why they would write something non-English sounding... FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...which showed agricultural practices, introduced animals, as well as birds and eels. - should be an "and" in here
Not sure if it's what you had in mind, but replaced "as well as" with "and". FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...very edible - by "edible" here you mean "palatable", so I'd say "highly palatable"
Changed to your wording, "very edible" was how the source put it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks alright otherwise WRT comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

edit
  • Great work as always, few nitpicks below:
Thanks, a few answers below, more to come. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answered the rest, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1893, a species of supposed comb duck was described – It was not initially clear to me that this is talking about the Mauritius shelduck (probably irritated by "a species of supposed comb duck"). Maybe make this clear.
Tried with "In 1893, a carpometacarpus wing-bone and a pelvis from the Mare aux Songes swamp were used to name a new species of comb duck, Sarcidiornis mauritianus. These bones were connected to the contemporary accounts of geese and later determined to belong to a species related to the Egyptian goose, and placed in the shelduck genus Alopochen." Is it any clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was probably driven to extinction due to overhunting and predation by introduced animals. – a bit frustratingly unspecific. Can we say "introduced mammals", possibly even adding "most likely cats"? That would give the reader a much better idea. An "introduced animal" can be anything.
I tried a combination, "It was probably driven to extinction due to overhunting and predation by introduced animals, particularly cats." I retained "animals" because that's all Cheke says, while Hume is more specific, and because it would be difficult to link (only link the word "introduce"?). FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "introduced animals" could point to Invasive species directly rather than the redirect.
You mean as a piped link? I did that, most sources say "introduced", so I prefer to stick to that in-text. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then, maybe linking to Introduced species instead is more correct? Because the definition of "Invasive species" is slightly different from an "introduced species". It is obvious that these species were invasive (=causing damage), but if the sources use the other term, we probably should as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, maybe introduced animals simply redirects to the wrong article? The redirect should be changed to introduced species instead? I didn't realise until now there were two different articles. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just corrected the redirect. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, guess who had made that redirect back in 2012 to begin with haha. I've redirected introduced animal too. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the rest of the sentence is in past tense and he made the statement in 1987, I imagine it would make more sense in past tense? Not entirely sure, perhaps word wizard Gog the Mild has something to say? FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum. I would change the last word of the sentence to 'belonged', but would not insist; the sentence is, IMO, technically correct as it stands, but may cause a reader double take. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I understood correctly, I changed to "to which the extant Egyptian goose (A. aegyptiaca) belonged". FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • radius (a lower arm bone) – not sure, but is "forelimb" or "wing" better than "arm"?
Said forelimb, wing is a bit vague, as I also used that for carpometacarpus. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • but considerably smaller than that of the domestic goose (Anser anser domesticus). – Instead, I would have expected a comparison with the Egyptian goose here, as it seems more relevant? And isn't the size of the domestic goose very variable, since they have been bred for size, weighing up to 10 kilograms in extreme cases?
I've moved the comparison with the Egyptian goose further up, but the sources don't give any more details than are given here, sadly. The other size comparisons are between individual bone elements, not between the species overall, and many of them are from the original description, which doesn't compare with the Egyptian goose at all. As for the domesticated goose, it's a bit hard to be more specific, as the source just says "while it is considerably smaller than those of the common domesticated Anser cinereus". That name seems to be a synonym of the wild greylag goose, so what domesticated breed that is meant here is not certain, but I imagine one that is close to the wild form. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • os ischii – why not stick with the more standard and more accessible ischium? Using the Latin name here is also inconsistent, as you use femur instead of Os femoris.
Changed to ischium, the source mixed terminology, so I was unsure if it may be more common in ornithological literature to use that form. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which would therefore make it the only known illustration of this bird in life – should "contemporaneous" be added?
Added, the source doesn't use the word, but should be obvious enough to add. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new identification also implied that the dodo was already extinct by this time – which time, 1677 or 1670?
Added 1670. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved "the" out of the italics. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting out further stuff! FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Probably worth seek a source review for reliability and formatting now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Z1720 - pass

edit

Version reviewed, spot checks not done.

  • Ref 2 is missing a location for publication
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9 is missing a publisher (I assume its the Cambridge University Press)
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12: Use the full name of Oxford University Press
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 13: If you are going to wikilink this publisher, the other publishers in the reference should also be wikilinked in the first instance they are mentioned, in order to be consistent.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes avibase a high-quality source?
I thought it was more official than it apparently is. But it appears that the person who manages the site[9] has a good deal of research papers to his name:[10] So I'd think this would be acceptable per "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", at WP:Self-published sources? FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with this, as the information does not seem too controversial. If a better source can be used, this should be swapped out. Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a list of names, yeah, but I'll replace if I find anything. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 17: ISBN is missing some dashes
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above have been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, can't believe I missed all these inconsistencies, should be addressed now, Z1720. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment:

  • Ref 1, Birdlife International is linked to a 2016 publication, so this ref needs to be checked to ensure it still verifies in the info in the article and the year updated. I also suggest archiving this website.

Also added some responses above. Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the year of the Birdlife citation, but it doesn't seem to archive well:[11] It seems to be generated in some non-html flash-like way that doesn't function as an archive. There isn't really anything in that source that would get outdated anytime soon, unless this species is combined with the one from a neighbouring island some day. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might just be a source that has to be updated regularly, so I'm glad we got the latest version here. Z1720 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed, this source review is a pass. Z1720 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2021 (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/Mauritius_shelduck/archive1&oldid=1046102247"