Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saint Croix 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:57, 20 January 2011 [1].

Saint Croix Macaw edit

Saint Croix Macaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it fulfills all criteria. It recently went through GA and has been improved to the point that it is difficult to think what could be added to the article. There are two wiki-links to DAB's, but they are to morphology pages that are not suited nicely for bird morphology. The English could maybe use an edit copy (non-native dyslect), but several people have helped me out on that, so it should not be too bad. The length is within the range of FA's. There is one external link that is a redirect but I cannot find out what the direct link is.Fixed it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Colour me impressed that you could get a potential FA out of a subfossil island species. I wonder, however, why no mention is made of the extinction. There must be some mention of the causes. Steadman usually mentions extinction causes in his works. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grin, why not. Anyway. I have added a sentence about the possible cause of the extinction, basically humans. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Sorry, not ready for FAC yet. IMO, A short article like this should be especially polished, but the polish is lacking. Some examples: Sasata (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose has been struck; now it's ready for FAC :) Sasata (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead sentence is way too long
    Agreed, fixed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the carpometacarpus diagram squishes the Taxonomy subheader uncomfortably against the taxobox
    Fiddled a bit with the placement, I think it is better. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, better. You might also consider right aligning it, and left aligning the skeleton drawing, which would avoid pushing the "Decription" heading. Sasata (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • please indicate on the range map what part of the world we're looking at
    Done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…but this is considered a lapsus (an accidental misspelling)." the ICZN source tell us about lapses, but does not confirm that this specific spelling is a lapsus.
    There is no source for that, other than the rules and an e-mail from Olson who confirms that his usage of the wrong name is a lapsus. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To add, there are no sources that claim Wetmore made a to-be-corrected error. As long as there is no reason to correct the name, the original name stands and typo's are considered lapsi. The last part is standard practice in taxonomy (hence the validity of the ICZN ref), while the first part (the corrected name) needs to be sourced by someone who recognized a reason to fix the name (which has not been done). I will clarify things in the text. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the multiple citations (3, 4 and 5 cites) are awkward, please consider bundling them (see WP:Citing sources
    I have bundled one already, pondering about the others. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I have bundled things, but personally, I seriously dislike it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I am going to revert this, because I really don't like it. If that means it cannot be FA, so be it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I'll approach this differently. Why does the sentence "The Saint Croix Macaw belongs to the macaw genus Ara." needs three references? If the classification is controversial, that should be discussed in the article, and separate citations given to each source. If it is not controversial, then the multiple citations are redundant, and one reliable source would be sufficient. Similarly, the following sentence "The Saint Croix Macaw and the smaller Cuban Red Macaw (Ara tricolor) are the only two Caribbean macaw species that have been described based on physical remains." Has five citations... why? Can't this fact be supported by just one of these sources? Or, if these five sources are being used to source different parts of this sentence, this should be made to the reader (who may want to confirm or further explore the literature for themself) in a bundled cite/footnote. Sasata (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now I get what you want to say. It must be the scientist in me, because if there are 5 good sources, you mention those five. I can fix that easily. One moment. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, looks much better! Now just explain the jargon and I'll have no choice but to strike out my oppose ;-) Sasata (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The jargon unfortunately is a bitch to deal with. I fear I have to upgrade a few other wikipedia articles before I can fix it here. Working on it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the taxobox, what is the point of the two citations beside the species name? Doesn't the single citation to the prologue beside the authority & year cover this?
    Agreed and fixed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tibiotarsus and carpometacarpus of the Santa Croix Macaw are of intermediate size." Intermediate relative to what? Why is this is the Taxonomy section, rather than the description?
    I agree that it is unclear. Intermediate of size relative to other macaws. The reason it is mentioned there is because the criterion is used to determine that it is a valid species and not just bones of an already described species. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are too many technical terms that are redlinked and not explained. How is the average reader supposed to understand "a ventral lip of the glenoid facet that is more protruded; and a humerus with a more proximal placement of the ectepicondylar process and the attachment of pronator brevis." ?
    I had a stab at the jargon, please see it this makes more sense. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • needs to be proofread, eg.
  • "showed that he bones differ"
  • "drawing of a unknown species of parrot by Richard Lydekker with in red the bones available"
  • "is an pre-Columbian"
  • why is yourdictionary.com being considered a reliable source?
  • both sub-fossil and subfossil is used in the article
    Made consistent. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Besides the size" -> "In addition to" or something less colloquial
    Fixed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(αὐτός — autos" MoS says emdashes should be unspaced
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • the x-axis of the Macaw bone size graph needs to indicate the size units
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • The initial sentence of both "Name and etymology" and "Taxonomy" are quite similar ("The species was placed in the macaw genus Ara by Alexander Wetmore" vs. "Wetmore placed the Saint Croix Macaw in the macaw genus Ara"); have you considered combining these sections into a single "Naming and taxonomy" section (or something similar)?
Fixed first sentence of naming, which is all about the species name.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "Wetmore placed the Saint Croix Macaw in the macaw genus Ara based on a single tibiotarsus,[1] which was confirmed by Olson who reexamined the bone." It is not clear what Olson reconfirmed: the generic placement, or that it was a single tibiotarsus.
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "The discovery of a second specimen consisting of several bones confirmed this placement." Who and when? I know the information is given later, but it leaves me hanging the way it is now, not knowing this information will be divulged later.
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "Based on this, authorities generally recognize this as a valid species." Not completely clear what "this" refers to.
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "Of the hypothetical species, the geographically nearest report is of the Lesser Antillean Macaw" Is it the report that is nearest, or rather the range of the hypothetical species? (Picky, I know)
Fixed, range is better.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • Could you give a date for the publication when these hypothetical species were proposed? Currently, it's sourced to a paper from 2001, but Wetmore (1937) says taxonomic affinities are unknown.
The hypothetical species are from different dates. The 2001 paper is the best source (per your comments earlier), but the rest hinges on wetmore and I think there should be two references.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • Is it really necessary to cite every consecutive sentence if the source is the same (see for example paragraph 1 of "Description"). It would make sense if you were using short form references, and giving us the page # each fact is found on, but I think it's just redundant here.
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "The slender proportions of the bone, and more elongated ridges about the proximal end, distinguish the species from the Amazon parrots." Is anything lost by removing the second (or even both) commas?
No, so fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "The bones found by Máiz López include the left coracoid (missing a portion of the head)" I don't understand… there is a part of the coracoid called the head, and this piece that was found is missing it? (the article on the coracoid bone does not help) Or part of the bird's head was missing? Perhaps I'm just being too disingenuous :)
Added bones head.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if giving specimen numbers in the main text is perhaps too much detail for a Wikipedia article? In any case, does USNM 448344 refer to just the "worn distal portion of the left tibiotarsus", or the collection of bones described in the paragraph that were found by López?
agreed, removed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Examination of the bones by Olson and Máiz López showed" could reword out the passive tense.
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • there's an earlier link for pre-Columbian than the current link
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • is ice-age supposed to be hyphenated?
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • any approximate dates for the 2nd and 3rd extinction periods?
i will dig this up later. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The presence of the bones in kitchen middens indicates that the species was hunted for food." I would swap "indicates" with "suggests", as it seems to be a big inference based on finding the bones of only a few birds in kitchen waste (maybe they kept the birds as pets, and when they died, threw them out with the trash?).
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "extinction of the Saint Croix Macaw has occurred after that."
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "… without specifying the age of the bone." Is it unusual that he didn't specify the bone age in his 1937 paper? Radiocarbon-dating wasn't introduced until a while afterward. Did they have another method for guessing bone age in the old days?
No, many older bones are not more precise dated as the culture they are found in. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Máiz López found several bone parts of a single bird" What are "bone parts"? Fragments?
Fixed, should read bones.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • what is PO 13?
removed, not necessary.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • "Pomarrossa Phase" is this spelled correctly? I cannot find any reference to this phrase on the internet other than this article and mirrors thereof. Also, in the next instance, "phase" is not capitalized.
Typo, fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • the title of ref #1 is missing the words "birds", and the journal title is not quite correct
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • author format is not consistent in the refs; #2 and #3 have second author listed as first initial last, unlike the first ref of #4
This is a template issue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • please fix the double fullstop in ref 6 (and 3rd ref of #4). It should also indicate somewhere that it's "Special Publication 13".
Template issue, circumvented.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • if the publisher location is given in ref #3, it should be given for the other book references too
Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus
  • Dabs/EL Condyle and Trochanter appear to be dab pages. External links links are all live, but Alegria should be marked as subscription only. I'm confused by the page range for that ref, since the first page displayed as an abstract of the article is 246? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In mammalian osteology Condyle and Trochanter are rather general terms for bony protuberances, and I think that the article should use the correct anatomical terms for the particular parts of bones. Perahps "internal condyle" should have the wikilink and piped to an appropriate page. I have not heard of an "ectepicondylar process", but there are mammalian bone features known as "epicondyles"; for example, medial and lateral epicondyles at the ankle joint and similar at the elbow. I think that it is not adequate to leave "ectepicondylar process" as a red link. See red link to "cnemial crest" also. Snowman (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the revised version.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Red wiki links: several red links on anatomy should be checked in case those in the article are alternative names or if they can be linked to one of the main pages on bird bones. Terminology extracted form old papers may be archaic. "Glenoid facet" is probably equivalent to the mammalian "glenoid fossa" (refereed to on the wiki as glenoid cavity), but I did not want to write this in as I only know a smattering on bird osteology. Snowman (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the revised version.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • THis will be the bitch to deal with, and it needs a bit of time for me to find the relevant information. In general, the anatomy pages are for mammals and not birds, which complicates issues. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

images - I am not convinced that the low resolution of "Mean length and ranges of ..." makes it particularly useful, or whether the associated caption is "succinct" Fasach Nua (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a SVG. Originally, I forced the thumb to be larger, but this is apparently not done for FA articles, so the size was removed. I think it should be larger for readability. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Condensed the caption. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used the upright attribute that allows scaling relative to the user preferred thumb size. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Taxonomy: "The discovery of a second specimen consisting out of several bones conformed this placement." Shouldn't "conformed" be "confirmed"? Also, the word "out" appears redundant and unneeded.
    Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: Capitalize "amazon"?
    Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distribution: Typo in "Puerto Rica".
    Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove capital letters from "North-East".
    Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the PDF references (2, 3, and 6), it would be a nice touch to indicate in the citation that the link is in PDF format. This helps those who have slower connections know what they are about to click on, especially if it's something that takes a long time to load. If you're using templates, the format= parameter handles this well.
    Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reference 7, the page number is coming out as pp. when it should be p. If the relevant parameter is pages=, just take out the s and it should be fixed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for catching these.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - reading through now. I'm making straightforward copyedits as I go and will jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The slender proportions of the bone, and more elongated ridges about the proximal end, distinguish the species from the amazon parrot - "The amazon parrot" looks funny, I'd maybe say "amazon parrots" (plural), or "an amazon parrot"
Fixed, agreed, better plural-- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have both "amazon parrot" and "Amazon parrot" - choose one for consistency.
Fixed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was musing on adding something succinct to the lead such as "It is known from several limb bones" - to clarify for the lay reader what we have in as plain terms as possible.
Yeah, I think that was a good diea. Fussed around with it, see if it works. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking good. I disclose that I am a wikiproject birds member but had had little to do with the article until now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the line drawing of the parrot it looks like there is a fracture at the upper third of the left tibiotarsus. It is more obvious in the original. Why is this? Snowman (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was replace the whitish with red, leaviong the grar as is, but it is confusing, so I fixed it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am asking about the fracture near the top of the left tibiotarsus in the black and white line diagram. What was the original line diagram used for? Was it to illustrate a fractured bone? Snowman (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen the amended image, but I think that the black lines of the drawing will need to be edited to remove the fracture. Snowman (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I can tell, it is not a fracture but a grove on the bone. The tibiotarsus is a fusion bone, so it could be from that. I will remove it for clarity. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to see how such a pointed piece of bone could be anything else except a fracture. However, I can not be certain from the black and white line sketch. Snowman (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is solved with the removal of the image. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "glenoid facet (roughly equivalent to the glenoid cavity)"; I would have guessed that there is a more exact equivalence than suggested here. Is "glenoid facet" the same as "glenoid cavity" (also called glenoid fossa), if not then I suggest using; "glenoid facet (equivalent to the glenoid fossa of mammals). Snowman (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
glenoid fossa is a disambig to glenoid cavity, so I used that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using the English name here does not look consistent with the other bone and muscle name. "pronator brevis" is latin. Are the other bone names all in latin? Snowman (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I piped the wikilink. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line drawing shows whole leg and wing bones in red, but the text mainly talks about portions of bones. I think that the line drawing is misleading, because it gives the impression that the discovered bones are more complete than they acutally are. To me, with this problem, the diagram is fatally flawed. If red can be painted in to represent the discovered bone portions, then I think it could be in infobox image. Alternately, I recall that there is an X-ray of most of an African Grey Parrot on Commons and that shows the bones. Snowman (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it depends what the function is. I added it to give the reader an indication which bones are found so they can place it in the animal, not to be a exact represenation of the exact parts that have been found. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the image as it is not precise enough, and as it is not a an image of a macaw skeleton, it never can be precise enough. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing it was probably the best option considering that it was the wrong species and it would be difficult to show the sub-fossil portions with great clarity. Snowman (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for the criteria you set yes. It does a disservice to the more general public who now has to follow various links to figure out what bones are actually found. Obviously, the second is less important than the first. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red in the diagram indicated complete bones and not fossil bone portions. Readers will no longer see this misrepresentation. Surely, readers are never assisted by seeing misleading diagrams on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think the readers are more important than a FA status, so I have withdrawn the nomination and restored the image, with clarification that should be good enough. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have amended the caption to make the point that the sub-fossils only represent bone portions, to minimise the potential confusion caused by the long bones being coloured in red in entirety. Snowman (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2011 (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/Saint_Croix_Macaw/archive1&oldid=1089083566"