Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lesser Antillean macaw/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) 13:18, 14 May 2016 [1].

Lesser Antillean macaw edit

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a species of macaw that may or may not have existed. At the time of writing, the species is not recognised by the IUCN, though it was until at least 2013. Since then, more evidence to support the bird's existence has been discovered, and the status of the species may be re-evaluated in the future. In any case, this is one of the best documented "hypothetical species", so I think it is a worthy subject. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sainsf edit

The first to review! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead,
  • Based on these accounts, Austin Hobart Clark named the species in 1905 appears slightly awkward, maybe because "described" would read better than "named". Can we say "Austin Hobart Clark described the species on the basis of these accounts in 1905" ?
  • Link endemic and monogamous here as well as later
  • is one of thirteen extinct macaw species Can we say "13"?
Did all the above. FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Taxonomy,
  • account by the Spanish bibliographer Ferdinand Columbus, who mentioned parrots as big as chickens, which the Caribs called "Guacamayas", in Guadeloupe I think brackets would be better for the part which the Caribs called "Guacamayas". They are already so many commas.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon I think just "Comte de Buffon" should do.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link scientific name.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we avoid repeating Ara?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it is necessary to link ornithologist. Anyone acquainted with birds should know what this means. And palaeontologist...?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • but this is impossible to prove. A bit too strong?
Says "difficult" now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • other hypothetical extinct species For example?
Some are mentioned in the last paragraph under Taxonomy, but I don't think Greenway actually lists them by name. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who are Monica Gala and Arnaud Lenoble?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • dated to 5.300 years ago I am sure it is not a decimal point.
Seems to have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last para, "Cuban macaw" is a duplink.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, no cladogram here?
None in the papers! Also, a single bone isn't much to make such an analysis from... FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Behavior and ecology
  • Why is sea-level linked?
Linked to Sea level rise? FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which bird is which species in the image to the right?
Clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Extinction:
  • Have we introduced Johann Huttich?
Done. I'm surprised he doesn't have an article. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that should be all. An interesting read, and I love the images! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Always a quick one, eh? I'll return soon. Someone complained once that there were too many versions of the same images, but since there are so few images of this bird in existence, and the fact that the images have significant differences that are also dealt with in the text, I think it is ok to leave them in. Who knows which colour shown pattern is closest to the truth? FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was dreadfully late for your Heterodontosaurus FAC! This should make up for that... I am in favor of keeping all those images, they look really interesting to me. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the issues above. I think I missed out a few more things: Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Description, The tail feathers of the scarlet macaw are Present tense all of a sudden in this line?
The scarlet macaw is not extinct! Added "in contrast" for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Careless me, but better to mark the contrast. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • depict red macaws that may be the Lesser Antilles macaw Not "Antillean"?
Whoops, fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pleistocene" not linked in Behavior and ecology, and doesn't seem to appear elsewhere.
It is linked in the fourth paragraph of taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, had to confirm it. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a new map instead of a dubious image, is it helpful? FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, splendid idea. We should not receive many complaints on that repetitive plate if we make way for more variety in the images. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, happy to Support! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As for images, I'd of course like a photo of the claw-bone rather than the map, but that probably won't happen any time soon... Though one of the describers of the bone has actually edited this article... FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, a bone would be something fresh in this article. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 19:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: On the newly added details in Taxonomy. I think it should read has its own species if Rothschild was giving a general statement. Also, or would be better to call him a zoologist than a writer. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to "zoologist", but not sure what you mean with "has". They were clearly all thought to be extinct at the time too, and Rothschild did say "had". Also, Rothschild is long dead, and made the statement more than a hundred years ago. So what would we gain from saying "has" in present tense? On another note, I cropped the taxobox image so it is less wide, it was hard too see any details at this size. The image wasn't complete anyway, because the far right side was not part of the scan:[2] It is on a separate page[3], and some serious stitch-work will have to be done to make the image complete. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, if Rothschild said "had", then that should be it. Didn't know that. On the image, it can be questioned why only the Guadeloupe macaws are mentioned in the caption and not the other two birds apart from the Lesser Antillean macaw. The cropped image is indeed better. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rothschild's remarks can be seen here:[4] As for the other birds, 10 are clearly frigatebirds, but 6 (Pie D'Inde) is a bit more tricky... Anyway, the other parrots seem more relevant to mention because they are fellow parrots, they are close to the macaw, and they are also extinct... FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, no more quibbles from me :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, all I need now is more reviwers, probably won't be long before I have to ping people... FunkMonk (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

Happy to take a look.

  • "and the possibility that sightings were of mainland macaws" My first thought was that this was a particular species. How about "and the possibility that sightings were of macaws from the mainland"... But then, what mainland? Perhaps this could be clarified.
Took your version and added "from the South American mainland". FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "monogamous" a zoological term?
I think it is. I have seen this term in use in several works. See Monogamy#Mating system. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to Monogamy in animals. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parrots thought to be the Lesser Antillean macaw were first mentioned by the Spanish historian Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés in 1553, referring to a 1496 account by the Spanish bibliographer Ferdinand Columbus, who mentioned parrots as big as chickens, which the Caribs called "Guacamayas", in Guadeloupe." Could this sentence be split?
I put "which the Caribs called "Guacamayas" in parenthesis, per Sainsf suggestion, better? FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the bird may be the subject of some illustrations" (lead) but "The French botanist Jean-Baptiste Du Tertre ... illustrated the bird and other animals found in Guadeloupe" Are these contradictory? If I understand correctly, there was definitely a population of birds there, the mystery is whether this population should be described as a new species.
The uncertainty is in whether all of the illustrations depict this bird. But since at least two definitely depict the bird, I removed "may". FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the natives" Much too colonial. I see you've used this phrase a number of times. "Native population" or "Carib people" would be preferable (though our article suggest that "Carib" is now an old-fashioned word, too- I think we should make every effort to avoid language that might be seen as offensive!)
Added "people" or "population" after every instance. As for "Caribs", it seems the exact people in question is Island Caribs, and since our article has that title, I'm not sure if that term is considered offensive as well? FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its similarity to the scarlet macaw" What does "it" refer to?
Named the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you be any clearer about the location of Folle Anse and/or Blanchard Cave? Also, who are Monica Gala and Arnaud Lenoble? Academics? Citizen scientists? Locals? Tourists?
Added "south-western Marie-Galante" before the mention of Blanchard Cave, but is a more detailed location really needed for Folle Anse, even when that fossil turned out to not belong to a macaw? Presented the two writers. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from archaeological contexts" is a very odd construction. I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure it's particularly good writing.
The source states "All documented instances of macaw bones have been recovered from archaeological contexts". I tried with "have been recovered from archaeological sites" instead, better? FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The size of the phalanx bone matched what was described for the Lesser Antillean macaw by contemporary writers, and the authors therefore correlated the two, while admitting this could only be tentative, as there were no remains of the Lesser Antillean macaw to compare with." I appreciate that you're putting across some rather complex ideas here, but perhaps this could be cleaned up a little.
Split in two, better? FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which supports the validity of the Lesser Antillean macaw" Again, I assume you mean something like "supports the idea that the Lesser Antillean macaw represents an independent species"; we know there was a Lesser Antillean macaw, the question is whether or not it is an independent species. Or am I misunderstanding?
Yes, took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that the violet macaw (Anodorhynchus purpurascens)" This gives the impression that you're talking about a species, rather than an incorrect name.
Rejigged to "the violet macaw, which was named Anodorhynchus purpurascens for accounts", better? It should perhaps make it clearer that we don't "accept" the name in the text... FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced it's completely clear; how about something like "Lenoble furthermore concluded that [whoever]'s Anodorhynchus purpurascens, a name for an extinct bird commonly referred to as the violet macaw, was a synonym of Amazona violacea, [whoever]'s name for the also-extinct Guadeloupe amazon."? I accept that this is pretty wordy, so may not be perfect. I think part of the problem is that you flit between talking about the names themselves and the species the names refer to. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, do we need that much detail in an article not about those birds? How about: Lenoble furthermore concluded that the supposed violet macaw (named Anodorhynchus purpurascens for accounts of blue parrots from Guadeloupe) was based on references to the also-extinct Guadeloupe amazon (Amazona violacea), and therefore never existed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but many of these were based on old descriptions or drawings and only represent hypothetical species" There's a shift in subject, here- the "these" refers to scientific descriptions, while, after the "and", you seem to be talking about the names or the populations (I'm not sure)
I'm not sure I follow, the comma is preceded by "As many as 13 now-extinct species of macaw have variously been suggested to have lived on the Caribbean islands", so isn't it clear "these" refers to the species? FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "these" refers to "suggestions", doesn't it? Or are you claiming that the species themselves are based on the old descriptions? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to species/their taxonomic name, actually, like when a species is based on a type specimen. Unclear? FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historical records of macaws on these islands, therefore, may not have represented distinct, endemic species; it is also possible that they were escaped or feral foreign macaws that had been transported to the islands." Similar to above: you shift from talking about "records" to a "they" which refers to particular birds/populations.
This one I understand, so I changed the sentence to "also possible that these macaws were escaped or feral birds that had been transported to the islands from elsewhere."
  • "1626 painting by Savery, showing similar red macaws with all-red tails" Is this OR? Reference, please! (Same for other captions would be useful.)
I have now replaced that one with a map, since the site that makes the connection may not be adequate, but the rest (Savery dodo, 1765 plates, Labat and du Tertre) are all discussed in the article text with sources. Do these really need citations in the captions as well? FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough- probably not. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the parrot species of each Caribbean island was distinct and could be distinguished from each other visually and vocally" How about "the parrots of each Caribbean island were distinct, and could be differentiated both based on their morphology and their vocalisations [or vocalizations]"
Took your version. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tertial and scapular feathers" Jargon
Linked, but the articles they redirect to are pretty general. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fossil phalanx bone from Marie-Galante was deposited in a time when the distance between that island and the rest of the Guadeloupe archipelago was very reduced compared to today, due to lower sea-levels." Why not simply "The fossil phalanx bone from Marie-Galante was deposited in a time when that island and the rest of the Guadeloupe archipelago were closer together than they are today due to lower sea-levels."?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johann Huttich" Who was he?
Presented. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "full of this macaw" Which?
Said "red macaws" instead, as we cannot be sure what species he referred to. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "them - their beaks and claws - with" Are these the right dashes?
Replaced with – FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by M. de la Borde" Who was he?
M. de la Borde, Mèdècin du Roi, not sure exactly what he did, but seems clear he was a French writer of some sort, so added that. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting article. I wonder if you could think a bit further about how to describe the population without indicating that it should be considered a species, which seems contentious. I've referred to it in my review as a "population"; how do you feel about that? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits and review. Yeah, I think what replaces "species" might depend on the context it is used in. Maybe "the bird" or "the macaw" could suffice in some places, in addition to "population"... Will return soon to fix issues. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You there, J Milburn? FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. If I haven't got to this in a week, message me again. A lot going on... Josh Milburn (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've made some last tweaks, but I'm now happy that this is where it should be. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Your edits look good. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. The article is adequately cited and uses all reliable sources. The only nitpick I have is that you use two different date formats in footnote 11. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that one is a dead link, and a link to Archive.com is therefore used instead. The extra dates (if that's what you mean) were added by a bot:[5] So I guess it is the standard way of formatting archived links now? FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant more that one date is m-d-y and the other is d-m-y. But if you can't change it because of some bot formatting issue, it's no big deal. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see, now consistent. The inconsistency was due to the bot-edit. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth edit

The article reads well, but there are a few minor points I noticed:

  • "... thought to have eradicated it shortly after." - "afterwards" I would have thought.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nested in trees and laid two eggs twice a year" does not quite agree with what it states in the body of the text.
I could say "once or twice a year"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based on the contemporaneous accounts" - I think this is not a correct use of the word "contemporaneous" which means existing at or occurring in the same period of time.. If you and I both wrote today about Attila the Hun, our accounts would be contemporaneous.
Changed all back to "contemporary". It was changed to "contemporaneous" by a copy-editor long ago... FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(named Anodorhynchus purpurascens for accounts of blue parrots from Guadeloupe)" - I don't understand this statement.
Changed the wording a bit, is it clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "far from being alarmed by many shots fired under a tree where they are perched, they gaze at their companions who fall dead to the ground without being disturbed at all," - You can see why they might have become extinct!
And almost without trace at that... FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and were probably extinct soon after." - Again "afterwards" would be better.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all should be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy with the changes you have made. I consider it a comprehensive and well-written article and now support the candidacy on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2016 (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/Lesser_Antillean_macaw/archive1&oldid=1136458362"