Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Echo parakeet/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 29 March 2019 [1].

Echo parakeet[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about what was once considered "the world's rarest parrots", since saved from extinction. This is my first nomination of a living species, after years of only nominating extinct ones, but I had so many relevant sources about it lying around from writing about other Mascarene birds that are now extinct that I thought this would be a good place to start. The article also covers an extinct subspecies, after their two articles were merged following some recent studies that demonstrated their close relationship. We don't have many good photos of this species, but I think the other photos included here are relevant and good enough until we get replacements. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

This looks strangely familiar. My, what wonderful prose. ;-) Disclosure: I copy edited this article for GOCE.

Hope it's not too much of a conflict of interest, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Réunion parakeet" bolded (rather than red-linked) when the article is not about it? It is made clear that this is a different subspecies.
Because we generally cover bird subspecies in the species articles, and both are covered fully in this article (there is really not much if anything to say about the Réunion subspecies which isn't mentioned here). FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text is needed for the images.
Will get to that... FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now added, can't say how good it is, though... FunkMonk (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow, although it looks pretty good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The specific name eques is Latin, and refers to the military colours of a French cavalryman" will not mean a lot to most readers. How about 'is Latin for horse, and refers to the green uniforms of French cavalrymen'?
Equus means horse, eques is cavalrymen. In any case, I can only say what the source says, to avoid OR. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you wrote 'The specific name eques is Latin, and refers to the French cavalryman' or similar it would be fine. My point is "The specific name eques is Latin" explains the "cavalryman" bit, but not "the military colours". Now I know, or can surmise, why the colour of the parakeet reminded French naturalists of a cavalryman, but I think that you need to either spell this out or remove it. As it stands, the senrtence begs a question.
The source only says "From Latin eques referring to the military colours of a French cavalryman." I agree it is very vague, but I'm not sure it's an improvement to remove the information (and it would fail the comprehensiveness criterion). FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. OK. Your call. Leave it as is.
  • "A deep, quiet "werr-werr" and a "prr-rr-rr" purr has also been heard from a female landing in a tree." Does that mean that there has only been a single reported instance of either of these calls?
At the time of that publication, based on field notes, yes. So I'm not sure if I can reword it so it sounds like a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a single occurrence of something merits mention. It would seem to be "going into unnecessary detail".
It is significant enough that later sources also report it (including the 2017 book: "On two occasions Jones heard a deep, quiet purring call from an adult female just after alighting in a tree"), so it would seem like an oversight to leave something out that several sources mention. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Ah, if it has been heard twice by a single observer, I agree with you. Change the text to reflect that and I'm happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, added, but it is unclear from the source whether it was the same adult female that was heard, or two separate ones, so it is hard to not be vague... Now reads: "A deep, quiet "werr-werr" and a "prr-rr-rr" purr has also been heard on two occasions from a female landing in a tree". FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That reads ok to me. I can live with a low bar on notability, but a single occurrence seemed a bit much. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could cites be put in number order, eg "Though now sedentary, the parakeet may have moved between areas seasonally in search for food; if cyclones had stripped trees of fruits, for example.[12][14][1][20][23]".
Heh, I usually don't do this as it doesn't seem to be specifically recommended anywhere, and I don't personally find it worth the time. I have no problem if others choose to change the order, though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
  • "with variation and intensity of the colours probably signifying fitness" Could "fitness" be linked to Fitness (biology).
Sure could, now is. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "being fed by a parent with intervals of up to 79 minute" -> 'minutes'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Psittacula parakeets employ mobbing behaviour by groups clustering together to noisily scold animals" "by" -> 'with'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption "Rose-ringed parakeet on Mauritius; this related species was introduced around 1886, and competes for nest-sites and probably some food." Colon, not semi-colon.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it may have excluded the echo parakeet from expanding and adjusting its feeding ecology to the changing environment by entirely occupying this niche" You say "this niche", but I am unsure what niche you are referring to.
Added "this more generalised niche". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as the invasive species brought with them" I think that a brief mention of the way(s) the invasive spices helped drive the various parakeets to extinction would be appropriate here.
It is outlined in detail under threats, but added "(through predation and competition)". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
  • "The New Zealand conservationist Don Merton (who had faced similar problems with birds in his homeland) was invited" Was invited where, and/or to do what?
The source doesn't say where (though it would be Mauritius), but I added "to help". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK
  • "six previously unknown echo parakeet breeding groups were found in the Black River Gorges" Any idea of the sizes of these six groups? Or of the total number of birds in them?
The source doesn't say, unfortunately (I would love to have more information about this discovery, but the sources are pretty vague). FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A shame.
  • Wondering why a copy edit had been reverted I discovered this from you. "I have one question, you changed a sentence to "It was discovered that from clutches of three or four eggs, only one or two chicks would fledge", when it said only one chick would fledge before, how come? The source says "The biologists found that though females typically laid three or four eggs, usually only one chick fledged." " Apologies for not replying, but you didn't ping, so I didn't realise it was there.
In answer, earlier the article states "Two of the young are normally raised." I do realise that raise is not the same as fledge, but their seemed to be a contradiction. Especially as it seems clear that more than one chick is left in each nest - the parents could more easily raise the brood they were left with - which seems pointless if only one "usually" fledges.
The problem is inconsistency in the sources. It would appear that the mortality changed between the time these sources were published/compiled (now that the population is more stable, more young are probably raised naturally than when the population was low and not assisted by humans), but that is just speculation on my part. As is, the sources just say different things, so we can't really "adjust" to what we think might be the correct number. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I shouldn't have done that, I should have queried it on the talk page. I'm not too happy about the "inconsistency", but both need mentioning and, as you say, you can only go with the sources.
  • "Rats, African giant land-snails, and crab-eating macaques prey on parakeet nests" Would it be clearer to say 'prey on parakeet eggs and chicks'?
Yes, and this actually lead me to revise the sentence further, spinning off the following: "African giant land-snails (Achatina spp.) can suffocate chicks with their slime while entering nests in search of shelter or food." FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Two queries from me left above. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who a couple of weeks ago would have struggled to tell a parakeet from parakinesis I have been educated by this well written, detailed, admirably illustrated article. To this layman's eye it seems to be well balanced, and the nominator has been scrupulous about not going beyond what the sources say. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Though this is probably not the best place to begin if you want to learn about parakeets in general, it does give a pretty good introduction to the conservation effort for endemic species on Mauritius. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Gog the Mild, it just occurred to me it might be relevant to mention that this species lived alongside the dodo, which is itself an icon of extinction, and a symbol of conservation. So I wonder if you knew that when reading the article, and whether you think it is relevant to mention somewhere? FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. Absolutely yes, it should be mentioned. Maybe briefly under Decline - "Many other endemic species of Mauritius and the other Mascarene islands were lost after the arrival of man"? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll add it then. I listed other extinct animals from the same islands in the articles I expanded about other extinct Mascarene species, but since this one still lives, I thought it would be too much. But the dodo is so famous and so tied to extinction that it warrants a mention. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:View_of_the_Mauritius_roadstead_-_engraving.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed, Nikkimaria, didn't see this section for some reason. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: You requested an image review but looks like one is here? Might want to remove from Current Requests. Kees08 (Talk) 07:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, seems I forgot it because there are usually many more issues... FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or apparently I didn't even notice it... FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The extinct Réunion parakeet of nearby Réunion (for a long time known only from descriptions and illustrations) was historically considered to be either identical to the Mauritius population or a distinct species, but a 2015 DNA study determined them to be subspecies of the same species by comparing the DNA… — a bit clunky with two many "species", perhaps something like ’The relationship to the extinct Réunion parakeet of nearby Réunion (for a long time known only from descriptions and illustrations) was historically unclear, but a 2015 DNA study determined them to be subspecies of the same species by comparing the DNA…
Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the three are grouped among the subspecies of the rose-ringed parakeet —I don’t understand. How can they be subspecies of a different species?
Yes, technically they should be subspecies then, but it seems they are not formally considered such, perhaps for practical reasons. It is also possible Psittacula krameri will turn out to be a species complex, but the sources don't specify either... FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • red orange (x2) —I would have thought red-orange or reddish orange
Changed to red-orange, in line with the source. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like other Mauritian birds, the echo parakeet is tame, more so during winter when food is scarce; they become more wary during summer, when food is more readily available, and it becomes more difficult for humans to approach the birds. —switches from singular to plural mid-sentence
Changed all to plural. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • therefore not due to for example inbreeding—"for example" between commas I think
Added comma. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • tropical nest flies—unclear what this redlink is for. Is it a species, a different taxon, or just a generic term?
It refers to a specific species of fly (Passeromyia heterochaeta) that we don't have an article for... FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd prefer to have that in parenthesis, though, since few if any readers would know what the name refers to, so "tropical nest fly" has to be spelled out somewhere. But if I give both common and scientific names for the fly, it looks inconsistent with the other animal species names, which are mainly just common names. Should I give scientific names for all species mentioned in the article, perhaps? FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my FAs I usually give common names only unless it's something like an obscure disease or insect which doesn't have one, when I give the binomial. I've never had problems at FAC doing that. In practice, if it's possible, I'll write a two-line stub to avoid a red-link, but that's not always feasible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, to avoid any confusion, I just added scientific names to everything (was already given for most of the parrots, so good for consistency). FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Ref 19: missing page reference
It is an ebook without page numbers, I was told here[2] that I only had to list the chapter or section. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 20: requires pp. not p.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30: missing page reference
As above, an ebook without page numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and with the exception of the minor issues raised above, are uniformly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as mentioned above, the pange ranges are missing because the sources are ebooks. I anticipated this might become a problem during source review, but was almost ridiculed when I brought it up at the FAC talk page.[3] FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's comments[edit]

This is excellent and I have very little to complain about. From a quick scan:

  • Moult is in ecology and behaviour and would more likely benefit from being in description, as it relates to anatomy/morphology not behaviour.
I'm a bit on the fence about this one; the source has info on moulting in its own separate section. Since the seasonal moulting in this species doens't change the plumage pattern, I'd argue it has more to do with physiology (which I'd put under behaviour) than physical appearance, and that the description section should be more about features that can be used to identify the bird. I'll try to see where other sources place such info. At least FAs like Black-necked grebe and Barn owl also cover moulting under behaviour (Atlantic puffin deals with it in both sections, because it becomes much different physically according to season). FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bigger issue is the lead, which is very ropey at the start. It starts by presenting the name of a subspecies as name for the species and then describes its range in contemporary terms rather than holistically. It only later concludes that the Reunion subspecies is a subspecies. I am skeptical at best of introducing a species range at the start using the term endemic without making it explicit that that is a relic distribution. I would suggest something like:
  • The echo parakeet (Psittacula eques) is a species of parrot endemic to the Mascarene Islands of Mauritius and formerly Réunion. It is the only extant native parrot of the Mascarene islands; all others have become extinct due to human activity. The species has two subspecies, nominate Réunion parakeet (for a long time known only from descriptions and illustrations) and the Mauritius subspecies, sometimes known as the Mauritius parakeet. The relationship between the two subspecies was historically unclear, but a 2015 DNA study determined them to be subspecies of the same species by comparing the DNA of echo parakeets with a single skin thought to be from a Réunion parakeet.
Good point, it's always difficult when the nominate subspecies is extinct (similar case in golden swallow). I took your wording, but excluded "nominate" since this is explained by the text below "As it was named first, the binomial name of the Réunion parakeet is used for the species". FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber's comments support[edit]

Very little to complain about. I might use "living" rather than "extant" but not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now changed throughout (three places). FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, forgot about this. all good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Sources[edit]

Feeling free to leave comments ;) It is difficult to verify claims from cited sources because:

  • Several paragraphs have number of citations at the end but none within, so it is unclear which statement is supported by which source. It can be that all sources that appear at the end of para support all claims within it, but that is not the case with at least first para of Taxanomy.
Often it is because several sources are used to support different parts of the same sentence, but I have spread some out where it made sense. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Cheke, A. S. (1987) is a 84 page long chapter. It is cited twice. So it will be better to give specific page numbers. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, rechecking, it seems to be only dealt with on two pages, so restricted it quite a bit... FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no other comments. AhmadLX (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I forgot to ping Brianboulton about the ebook issue. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2019 (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/Echo_parakeet/archive1&oldid=1138459179"