Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rodrigues night heron/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) 13 August 2023 [1].

Rodrigues night heron

edit
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has been a few years since the last extinct Mascarene bird at FAC, so here's one more. Most that has ever been published about the species is summarised here, and the two known contemporary accounts are given for context and flavour. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Licensing is ok, the only issue is that the infobox sandwiches with the first image. (t · c) buidhe 17:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually not considered a problem, though. May look worse with the new Wikipedia layout (which I've disabled because I dislike it). FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"That's usually not considered a problem". By whom? A sandwich is a sandwich. It sandwiches (just) for me too, and I have also opted out of the ghastly new Vector. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has never been brought up in any of the many FACs with taxoboxes I've reviewed or nominated, so I'd say it has de facto never been a problem. I personally think it's a different case than sandwiching between two images, if you look at actual use. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding the taxonomy section has created room enough so I could move the image in question much further down, so it doesn't squeeze as much text. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "in two contemporary accounts from 1691–93 and 1725–26". Do we need "contemporary" if you give the years? I mean 'in two accounts from 1691–93 and 1725–26' would seem to make it clear when the accounts were from.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link robust?
Didn't know there actually was a relevant article (though a stub), now linked to Robustness (morphology). FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two contemporary accounts from 1691–93 and 1725–26". The main article does not mention any account from 1691-93.
While Leguat's account was published in 1708, it is about events that took place in those years, I've clarified it by moving it around to "in his 1708 memoir A New Voyage to the East Indies about his stay on the Mascarene island of Rodrigues from 1691–93" in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this species was little related to any other herons". Either 'these species were little related to any other herons' or 'this species was little related to any other heron' (singular).
Went with "heron". FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of "Taxonomy" starts in 2007, but the last sentence then skips back to 2006, which jarss lightly.
Oh, yes, I had noticed this, and actually thought I had already moved it around, now done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Laguat 1891 have an OCLC? (560907441)
Yes, added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent little article, well up to your usual standards and with little for me to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the one's involving Leguat's writings are always fun to write, answered points above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I had my say in the good article review, and have not much left to add here.

  • What would you think of converting the long list of bone measurements to a (perhaps collapsed) table? It's rather difficult to read as prose, and has no content other than the measurements.
    Hmmm, I'm not very familiar with tables, and this is more or less the format I've used in similar articles. I think as it is now is at least easier to modify if the need arises, whereas tables are more cumbersome and rigid. But if someone insists, could be looked into... I don't think I like the idea of it being collapsed, though, it isn't that long. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing wrong with the way you have it, but personally I think a table might be easier to read. Not a FAC issue, though, just a suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the supratendinal bridge ("bridge" over a tendon) of the tibiotarsi was": this is very picky, but the prior sentence has the leg bone (femur) in the singular. The next sentences start with "wing-bones" which means the subsequently named bones are plural. I think it should probably be "tibiotarsus" here. Then we get tarsometatarsus within the same context as the other leg and wingbones, so I think that should be tarsometatarsi.
    Changed, the sources are often also internally inconsistent, but that doesn't mean we have to be, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since they could compare with the pelvis": if I'm parsing this correctly (a comparison with the pelvis of the black-crowned night heron) this should be "since they could compare the pelvis".
    Done. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This didn't bother me when reading through for GA, but now I wonder if we should point out at the mention of Günther and Newton that they were mistaken in thinking they were comparing with the black-crowned night heron. As it stands a reader who pauses after that paragraph is misinformed. Perhaps a note, if it's too difficult to clarify this inline?
    While I see where you're coming from, that has no bearing on its classification into the genus Nycticorax, which is all that's really discussed about their study in the taxonomy section. Both subspecies in question belong to that genus (and even one species, so its assignment to the genus would have been the same whichever subspecies it was compared to), so the issue only has relevance in the flight ability section, as it relates to the estimated proportional size of the wings. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In your shoes I think I would be bothered by the tiny inaccuracy, but I agree it has no impact on the article's topic, so OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I've now answered the above. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No issues with the unstruck points; they're matters of opinion. FYI I tweaked some of your indents per WP:INDENTMIX. I think strictly speaking INDENTMIX says don't add gaps either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and yeah, I must admit I have never looked into indentation etiquette, hard to change old habits, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New source

edit
  • A heads up to Mike Christie and Gog the Mild, I was just told a new paper[2] relevant to this species was published just a few days ago (crazy conincidence it's right when the FAC is up, and little has been published about them for years), I will add any relevant new information as soon as possible and tag you again for check-up. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, Mike Christie and Gog the Mild, I've now incorporated all info from the new paper[3] which wasn't already present in the article (these edits:[4]), except a summary of the detailed description, which I think I need your advice for before I proceed with. I've added a "sample" of what I would do as the third paragraph under Description, which currently only covers the cranium, and where you can see my "simplification" of the terminology used in the paper, with explanations and links. But I wonder if you think this is too detailed, and as you can see in the paper under "Morphometric description and comparison with N. n. nycticorax", there will have to be a lot more text like this if I continue. If you are fine with this, I will continue, but I will need some pointers what to do instead of that if you think it's too much. The rest of the new additions should be ready for your review, though. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I assume you mean in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made it understandable that it would have been compared to a bittern." Seems a little convoluted. Maybe 'that it was compared to a bittern' or 'that it had been compared to a bittern'?
Took the first. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The holotype specimen (the specimen the name was based on)". This seems an odd and incomplete explanation of "holotype".
Tried with "(the specimen the specific name and original scientific description is attached to)". FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1879, more fossils of this species were described by the German zoologist Albert Günther and E. Newton, with the benefit of bones not known at the time of Milne-Edwards's original description, obtained from caves by the palaeontologist Henry H. Slater in 1874, and now part of the collection of the Natural History Museum, London." A bit long and complicated for a single sentence. Not to mention jumping around chronologically.
Split and moved around in the paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as is the case for some other island birds." The Mascarene islands, or any islands?
Source just says "island birds" (but uses the dodo as example), so it's a general trend. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog the Mild, answered the above. Do you have any ideas as to how to deal with the detailed description here? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"But I wonder if you think this is too detailed"? Yes, it is (far) too detailed. Summary style please. We are addressing a lay audience. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I decided to just remove that part, the gist of it (more robust skull and legs, weaker wings) is already summarised from earlier publications. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

edit
  • such as an increase or decrease in size and robust jaws and legs – I am confused about this. Do these night herons increase or decrease size and robustness? Do they increase the jaws and decrease the legs (or vice versa), or did some species increase both and others decrease both? I just don't know what to make out of this information.
It's a general statement about trends across island night heron species, some have become bigger, some have become smaller, and some have gotten more robust jaws and legs. Does it read now like it should also apply to the subject of the article? Or do you think it's unnecessary to mention in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would remove it, also because it still does not make a lot of sense to me – when some get larger and some smaller, in which way are these opposite trends "consistent" with an island habitat? Does the island habitat favour both increase and decrease in size, at the same time? I suggest to remove it because I simply do not see what this sentence tries to tell me, what the conclusion should be. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the part about size, but left that about the robust jaws and legs, as that seems to be a general trend. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3060-2870 years – needs the proper dash (–) you use elsewhere.
Replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • availableto – space
Whoops, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Measurements of the bones availableto Milne-Edwards and Günther and Newton show that – this is a bit confusing to read because of the two "ands" separating the names. I wonder if it would be best to just remove this part. You don't mention authors in the previous paragraph about the dimorphism; so why here? These seem to be uncontroversial measurements.
I can see that it looks weird, but I did it because there aren't newer measurements to add, so I thought it was good to note that these are pretty old, when the article already mentions more material is known since. I tried with "Measurements of the bones available by the late 19th century" instead of mentioning authors, if that's better. It appears that the new paper will have tables of measurements which are not available yet when it is formally published in a volume, so will try to replace the old measurements if that happens. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. I think your change is better, because now it becomes clear that this is an old source (while reading, I had forgotten about that). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • supratendinal bridge ("bridge" over a tendon) of the tibiotarsus – Any idea what this "bridge" is made of? Some form of ossified connective tissue, or cartilage? Just repeating "bridge" in the gloss does not really explain it.
That's the problem, because since it was ossified in this species, I don't know how else to describe it, as this is explained after the parenthesis as a distinguishing feature. The source says "The supratendinal bridge is incompletely ossified in the three tibiotarsi of N. duboisi. The condition is unknown in N. mauritianus, whereas in N. megacephalus the supratendinal bridge is completely ossified (Milne-Edwards, 1874, pl. 14: fig. 7)". So since this feature can be both ossified and non-ossified, I'm not sure what to add. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what it consists of in an unossified state – but you are right, it is not important here because it is ossified anyways. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this species an island dwarf or an island giant? Did the island habitat lead to an increase or decrease in size compared to the ancestor population from the continent? (I see now; 60 cm in length probably means that size did not change at all).
Yeah, the earlier statement was general about all island night herons, so while some either increased or decreased in size, this one only seems to have changed in head and leg proportions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The short and thick proportions of the tarsometatarsi in the Mascarene species were closest to the black-crowned night heron within their genus, – but – I would guess – they were less short and robust in the black-crowned? This somehow gives the impression that the two are similar.
The other sources seem to indicate so, but this one doesn't seem like it specifies, it just says "By the proportions of the tarsometatarsus, which is short and thick, the Mascarene night herons are more similar to Nycticorax nycticorax than to other congeners, particularly N. caledonicus. In the case of N. megacephalus and N. mauritianus, however, the robustness of the tarsometatarsus is probably accentuated by the reduced flying ability (Table 3)." Do you think "accentuated" indicates that their robustness was larger? FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it means that, yes. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I went with the same term, "accentuated", because I fear there will be too much interpretation on my part if I try to rephrase it and find a synonym. But feel free to suggest if you know an appropriate one... FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hume interpreted Leguat's account in 2023 – I would move the "in 2023", otherwise this could mean that Leguat's account was written in 2023.
Moved to start of sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hume speculated in 2023 that the increased sexual dimorphism in the species was a result of competition between the sexes. This kind of difference is mainly an effect of food availability, – this seems to suggest that the sexual dimorphism was an adaptation to the island habitat. However, earlier you stated that the black-crowned night heron has similar dimorphism; so this does not necessarily have anything to do with the island habitat?
That's a very good point, and I actually don't know what to do about it. This is what Hume says when stating they're both dimorphic: "There is marked sexual dimorphism in the skeleton of N. megacephalus, which is also present in N. n. nycticorax, with males being larger (Amadon, 1942; Martínez-Vilalta and Motis, 1992; Kushlan and Hancock, 2005)." and this is from the end of the same paragraph when he speculates about the reasons: "Increased size-related sexual dimorphism may be a result of intersexual competition, which is predominantly an effect of food availability (Selander, 1972, Shine, 1989). It is likely that this was the main evolutionary driving force in the Rodrigues night heron, with each sex exploiting a differing range of food items on an island with limited resources (Hume, 2019)." FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that the sexual dimorphism in the black crowned is simply not as pronounced than in the Rodrigues. The size differences in the black crowned seem to be subtle. You write that the dimorphism in the black-crowned is "pronounced", maybe that is simply an overstatement? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made the wording closer to that of the paper to avoid any interpretation on my part with "There was marked sexual dimorphism in the Rodrigues night heron, which is also present in the black-crowned night heron". Problem with some of these kind of ambiguous descriptions is it makes them really hard o reword without possibly changing the meaning... FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • they found the leg bones to be more well-developed and the body-size lesser – This sentence is a bit awkward. "Better developed"? "body size" should not have the hyphen. Body size – does this mean length or weight? Also, I think we need a hint that they were comparing with a particularly large subspecies of black-crowned night heron (as mentioned further below); otherwise I fear that the reader might think that the Rodrigues is kind of an island dwarf, which is not the case.
Changed to ""Better developed/body size". I added "the European subspecies of black-crowned night heron" to the sentence. And while they don't state anything about weight, your comment made me realise I have made a mistake, it actually says the body was equal to the living heron (contrary to what Milne-Edwards indicated, a particularly bulky body), so I've changed to "and the body size equal to the extant night heron". I think I was confused by the convoluted wording of the source: "Having shown from the pelvis, with which M. Milne-Edwards was not acquainted, that the body of this bird was considerably less in size than he supposed, in fact equal to that of the European Mght-Heron, we arrive at the opposite conclusion, viz, that the leg is proportionally much more developed in length and strength." FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't the "body size equal to the extant night heron" contradicting this later information: "Günther and Newton had thought they were using the bones of the European subspecies of the black-crowned night heron for comparison, they had actually used the bones of the large South American subspecies (N. n. obscurus)."? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure in what details that comparison made a difference, the 1987 source only says "In their table of measure-ments Giinther and E. Newton unknowingly used a skeleton of the large South American race N. n. obscurus. Comparison with this skeleton gave the impression that the wings of N. megacephalus were unusually small, but they are not small by comparison with N. n. nycticorax." I'm assuming the problem is that they compared individual elements of each, assuming the extant bird was of the same overall size, but differently proportioned, when the subspecies they used was apparently larger overall, giving the impression that the compared elements were therefore also proportionably different. In either case, I think they were still "more" correct than Milne-Edwards original conclusion, and I don't think it relates specifically to the body size issue. But to be honest, these sources are not entirely unambiguous... FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is simply that you first state they compared with the European subspecies, and in the next paragraph state that they actually compared with the South American subspecies. Since the South American subspecies is larger, it means that their size comparison is dubious. I wanted to suggest that you, in the first paragraph, already mention this error. It is a very minor point though, and I don't want to be pedantic. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I actually only added which subspecies it was after your point here, before it just said black-crowned night heron because I wanted to keep the "revelation" of the wrong subspecies for the part about the 1987 paper to keep it chronological. So I wonder whether it would be better to just not mention they thought it was the European subspecies until the 1987 paper is covered? FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I was reading it, I thought "ok, then the Rodrigues is smaller than the black crowned". Only when I read on in the next paragraph I realized that this is only because they mistook the subspecies. So I somehow felt misinformed. That's why I was wondering to add a gloss like "(but actually was the larger South American subspecies)". Keeping this revelation for later … I just think it is difficult to remember such a fact over two paragraphs, and even with you do, it is inconvenient to "overwrite" this fact again. But it's only my personal opinion and suggestion; please do what you think best! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What if I write "with bones they thought belonged to the European subspecies of black-crowned night heron", to already indicate uncertainty, but without spelling out the details? FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would fix the problem! Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and that it would only have been possible from sloping ground – Long sentence, and I was not sure what "it" is referring to. I suggest to replace "it" with "take-off" for clarity.
Split and changed to "He concluded that take-off would only have been possible from sloping ground". FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead mentiones that the bird "was fast", but in the text, the only information about speed comes from a very old record. I wonder how reliable this fact is, and if the more recent sources say anything?
The newer sources indicate it was adapted for running, which I took to mean the same/confirm the account, but I've changed it accordingly in the intro as "was adapted to running". FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jens Lallensack, should be addressed now (with some questions, some of these are a bit difficult). A lot of these issues happened because I hastily added a big chunk of text after a new paper was published during the FAC, some of it was maybe a bit messy, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Reviewing this version, spot-check upon review. What's e.T22728787A94996659. in #1? I notice some inconsistency in date format e.g between #5 and #1 and page number ranges appear to be quite uneven at times. Otherwise, source formatting is consistent and the sources appear to be reliable, even accounting for their often old age (it's an extinct species, so a lot of sources would be old). I presume the non-use of many sources at [5] is because they don't add any new information? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, most issues seem to be with the IUCN source, which seem to be constantly drive-by edited by bots and editors I assume know better than me how to format them. The "e" page number seems to be common to many online publications without regular page numbers, but I have no idea what it means. As for the apparent date difference, it seems to be that 2016 here denotes volume rather than year alone, but someone who knows more about that source (which is used in practically all animal articles, and are mass changed by bots when the website makes an update) will have to chime in. The citation seems to have been last (non-bot) edited by Trappist the monk, so pinging them, and perhaps Plantdrew knows something. As for pages, mainly the pages and ranges relevant to the subject are the ones given here, but in some cases the citations give the full range if it's hard to break up. And while most of the Google Scholar results are just lists or brief summaries of older sources, I've now added two that provided a little bit more context. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
drive-by? Isn't that a bit derogatory? Are you implying that the edits to the IUCN citations are somehow inappropriate?
{{cite IUCN}} is a wrapper template around {{cite journal}}. Commonly, editors can use a template, {{make cite IUCN}}, to create a {{cite IUCN}} template from the plain-text citation available at an IUCN assessment page. The last update to ref 1 was done by a now-retired bot task that updated the {{cite IUCN}} template using the IUCN API at this edit. Before that, I edited the IUCN references to convert a {{cite web}} template and an {{IUCN}} template to use {{cite IUCN}} (these two edits).
The plain-text citation at IUCN for Nycticorax megacephalus looks like this:
BirdLife International. 2016. Nycticorax megacephalus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22728787A94996659. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22728787A94996659.en. Accessed on 04 August 2023.
That citation is basically a journal-type citation where the volume identifier precedes the colon and the page identifier follows the colon. In IUCN citations, the volume identifier is usually, but not always, the same as the assessment year. For a page identifier, IUCN use a concatenation of two sub-identifiers:
T###... – a taxon identifier
A###... – an assessment identifier
I presume that the e. prefix means 'electronic'. {{cite IUCN}} emulates the IUCN style within the constrains of Citation Style 1.
I notice some inconsistency in date format e.g between #5 and #1. I don't see an inconsistency; ref 1 uses a year date: 2016; ref 5 also uses a year date: 1873. In fact, all publication dates (|date= or |year=) in the stated version are 'year' dates. Where is the inconsistency?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, by drive-by, I just mean someone not involved with writing the individual articles, but mainly concerned with editing the IUCN templates across articles. As for the year inconsistency, I think it's because the IUCN source shows 2016 both for the year and volume? FunkMonk (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2023 (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/Rodrigues_night_heron/archive1&oldid=1170151049"