Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Broad-billed Parrot/archive1

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 14:47, 12 January 2013 [1].

---

Broad-billed Parrot

Broad-billed Parrot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Broad-billed Parrot/archive1

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have added practically all known information about and all contemporary images of this bird, and the article has also been copyedited since GAN. There was some discussion on what to use as infobox image, but I still believe the contemporary sketch is the best choice, for reasons stated on the GAN page. A new restoration was proposed, but since the colours of the birds were only vaguely described, this would be futile. The Grönvold restoration has countless inaccuracies. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments from Jim Nice article, but some inevitable nitpicks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Link tribe
• In lead para 2, too many sentences start with "it", vary or roll up sentences

  Done. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• first illustration of the bird, along with the first illustration of a Dodo — avoid repetition, perhaps first illustrations of both this parrot and the Dodo

  Unfortunately that would change the meaning, as it would no longer be clear that it's the first one illustration of each bird. I've removed the duplicate "illustration", but the duplicate "first" may be needed to keep the sense. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Think about helping us with the people, Emile Oustalet -> French zoologist Emile Oustalet
• "island hop" to the isolated islands. — perhaps to then less isolated islands or similar?

Not specifically stated in the source, but that's what's implied, so yes.

• covered in forests, but because of deforestation, very little of them remains today — lose "of them"

  Something is needed there, because "very little" by itself needs an antecedent. "very little remains today" could only mean very little deforestation or very little forests :) We could put "very little forestation remains today", but isn't that too repetitive? --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• covered in forests, of which very little remains today due to deforestation? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice. Done. --Stfg (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Mimusops maxima, Diospyros egrettorium. — I really don't like the way you've linked these, I'd prefer, eg, Mimusops maxima, but failing that Mimusops maxima is still better than linking half a binomial
• ref 5, italicise binomial
• ref 16, no full stop at end

Fixed, but for some reason there's a comma before the name of the journal, and I can't find it in the template, so I don't know how to remove it...

• ref 3, personally I wouldn't link to an abstract, but that's just me
• refs use a mix of sentence and title case
• refs, give book publisher location for all or none

I look forward to supporting soon.

Although "cockatoo" is a common term, it is mentioned in the first paragraph of the Description section to compare features of the anatomy of the two birds. So, in terms of WP:OVERLINK, that link was "particularly relevant to the topic of the article". May I restore it, please? --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't need my permission. Since this is a conscious link rather than an oversight, I've undone my edit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that well placed duplicate Wikilinks can be useful and can save the reader time looking for only one example of a Wikilink somewhere on the page. The Wiki guidelines recommends easy-to-find wikilinks in captions. Snowman (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the ref (wrong template used), now happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• In the introduction and "Behaviour and ecology" section; "... largest cranial sexual dimorphism known in any parrot". This could be interpreted as only referring to the bones encasing the brain and it would also tend to refer to brain size by extrapolation, but I presume that this is not the intention. I suspect that this mention to the "cranial" area should be replaced with a mention to the "skull" or "head". See an old version of Grey's Anatomy for human anatomy for comparison. In humans the bones of the skull are divided into the bones of the face and the bones encasing the brain. There may also be a more general definition of cranium making use of the word cranium confusing, and if "cranium" is used in Hume's reference, then I wonder in what sense it is being used. The Wiki article on skull anatomy seems to contain a sizeable proportion of nonsense to me, so there is no point in reading it for reliable information. I would guess that the anatomy of this bird's skull is not well known, so it may be presumptive to specify the apparent sexual dimorphism is due to differences in the size of certain bones, but not other bones or to soft tissues around the skull. How specific are the sources? Are there any fossils of this birds cranium? Snowman (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we should follow terminology that only applies to humans? The source uses skull and cranium interchangeably, and so do most articles about animal skulls. For example:[2] And skulls are known. As for the rest of the issues, I have fixed them all, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that the definition applies to human anatomy only, so it may be better to refer to the OED instead. The OED has two main meanings of cranium (see OED). The first meaning listed is the strict meaning (for the bones around the brain), then the general meaning (for the skull) is listed, and lastly what they list as a humorous meaning (for the head). I think that the article should avoid all ambiguity over the word cranium by saying which meaning of cranium is being used or by avoiding using the word cranium. At the present time, I think that the use of the word "cranium" is ambiguous, and I think that this unnecessary difficulty for readers should be avoided in a FA. Incidentally, it is clear which meaning is intended in the external article that you have linked, since they say that they are including the facial bones. Snowman (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, such a distinction is only used when it comes to human anatomy. So it's irrelevant here. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is true, you appear to be referring to specialised jargon used in animal anatomy, which is inappropriate in the introduction. The OED does not specify that their definitions of cranium only apply to human anatomy. Snowman (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The OED is most likely anthropocentric in this regard, other featured articles about animals use "cranium/cranial" too for the front part of the skull[3][4][5][6], so I don't see why it should be a problem here. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

None of the four Wiki articles you linked mentions "cranium" in the introduction. It is clear that these articles use cranium as meaning the whole skull, and I think that it would be better if they used section headings like "Skull anatomy" instead of "Cranial anatomy". These articles uses simple terms like "a small head" in the text which sets the context well. I think that cranium is a specialised word and should be be used in the introduction especially with little context. The introduction in particular should be written in accessible and clear language and I think that the current use of "cranium" is not suitable for an introduction considering "head size" could be used instead with no loss of meaning. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I could easily show that each case refers specifically to the front part of the skull (mainly to jaw mechanisms), otherwise I wouldn't had written it. But sure, it can be changed in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of the osteology I know is about human bones, so using "cranium" for the face bones seems really odd to me, but we could discuss that on a different talk page. Snowman (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I note your change to "skull". I have used "head", because so little is know about what was caused the head to be so bulky. However, use skull if it is preferred. Snowman (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Change to head is fine. But you should be careful when directly translating terms used in human osteology to animals and vice versa. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, I am puzzled by different terminology in different specialities. Actually, there are a lot of similarities in many species stemming from the segmental aspects of anatomy. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In most animals, there isn't really much of a physical distinction between the "face" and the rest of the skull, unlike in humans, due to the large brain size. Our heads are pretty much a brain with a face on.FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Richard Owen, who also coined the vernacular name"; the bird has two common names, so this is ambiguous. Snowman (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Raven Parrot" is a very recent invention, but I'll clarify it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Its affinities are unclear, ..."; jargon in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Changed to "taxonomic affinities" with a wikilink. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a bit better, but I think that you could use more accessible language. "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style"; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to simply it, so that readers will not be put off by jargon. Snowman (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view"; see "WP:MOSBEGIN". The 2012 genetic study seems to upturn a traditional apple cart. I am beginning to thing that this hint to an alternative classification should be included very briefly, perhaps at the end of the first paragraph of the introduction. I am not certain, but it does not seem neutral including Psittaculini, but not the vasa parrots. Snowman (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

See the last discussion on the talk page, even the study itself states the placement is weakly supported, so it shouldn't be given undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, that study included only Mascarinus, not Lophopsittacus, so it doesn't have any direct impact on its own classification. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I see, I missed that point. Snowman (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• "However, the "strong jawed" parrot genera he compared it to have weak jaws"; this sounds bizarre. I presume that there must be a better way to describe this. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe something like "the genera he referred to as having strong jaws/used as examples of strong jawed parrots"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer may be in the source, which I can not see. What was he describing that was weak? I do not think that the article has got the nitty-gritty of this point. I might need to read a bit about parrot beak anatomy to comment any further. To what extent are parrots bills calcified (how radiotranslucent are they)? Snowman (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a short overview of Holyoak's arguments here: [7] The longer 1973 paper was refuted by Smith 1975, who stated: "Holyoak’s conclusion (1973b), following his examination of radiographs, that parrots of these four genera have ‘strong beaks’ is not borne out by experience of the live birds." The four in qustion are Cyanorhamphus, Melopsittacus, Neophema and Psephotus. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your re-write makes the section understandable. Were the conclusions about the Broad-billed Parrot beaks being weak refuted? If so, it might be helpful to be specific about this. Snowman (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That should be the part where it is compared to the Hyacinth Macaw, which is able to crack hard nut. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds more like two competing hypotheses, the fruit eating or nut eating Broad-billed Parrot. Snowman (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The two aren't mutually exclusive of course, but it isn't probable that it was too weak t ocrack nuts. I've added a little more about strength, is it enough? FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As for the part about other species that are extinct, they belong in the ecology section, it is inevitable that the section covers extinction, since most of the endemic vertebrate species on the island are. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Much better. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Fuller in Extinct Birds 1987 has the authority for Lophopsittacus mauritianus as Newton, 1875. For double checking. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Owen coined the species name, Newton coined the genus name, it's mentioned in the article and taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

... The taxobox has an error according to Fuller's 1987 book. The taxobox says; "Lophopsittacus mauritianus (Owen, 1866)". Owen could not be the author of Lophopsittacus mauritianus, because Newton assigned it to the genus Lophopsittacus. According to Fuller, Newton should be the author of Lophopsittacus mauritianus and not Owen. Snowman (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The author of the species is always credited in the binomial section of Wikipedia taxoboxes. The author of the genus is only credited under genus. Fuller doesn't have a Wikipedia taxobox in his book, so it can't really be used as basis. See also Great Auk (Linnaeus is credited under binomial, though he did not coin the genus name). FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. The binomial and synonym with authorities are in the left margin in the 1987 book, but it seems to be a red-herring. Snowman (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• "... along with the first batch of Dodo bones found in the Mare aux Songes swamp"; is this the first ever discovery of Dodo bones or the first from this swamp. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The wording is unambiguous: it means the first from this swamp. --Stfg (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup.

Yes, that is what it says. Could it be misunderstood by some as meaning the first ever Dodo bones found by mistake? Snowman (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it, to be honest. I'd be reluctant to introduce redundancy just to clarify that it doesn't say something that it already clearly doesn't say. :) --Stfg (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for considering it. Snowman (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• "... Alfred Newton coined the new genus name Lophopsittacus"; why did he use a new genus name? He must have thought it was not a Psittacus, so what where his reasons for thinking for putting it in a new genus? Possible omission, because I think that the reasons for classifying a bird in a new genus are significant. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it was because of the crest, but I'll take a look.

Someone fixed it. Snowman (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• To me the paragraph on Thirioux's Grey Parrot seems out on a limb. What has this paragraph got to do with the rest of the article? Snowman (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A sequence of copy-edits has resolved this. Snowman (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It was initially placed in this genus, so it is very relevant.

• "it had a flattened skull"; sounds odd. Which part was flat? Snowman (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

All of it, in height.

I do not fully understand your reply and I think that the article needs rephrasing. Did it have a flat zone on its head somewhere? Snowman (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The head shape was somewhat oval, you can see it in the Gelderland drawing.

There is a difference between "a flattened head" and "somewhat oval", so why does the article say "flattened head"? Which part of an oval is flat? Snowman (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have found some mentions the parrots in general have dorso-vertral flattening of the head (it says "cranium"), so I might not be that important to include it in the article. I suggest remove "flat head" from the article. The Hume paper on page 51 appendix 2a says "parietals gently slope towards the sharply angled occipital region, ..." and I think this is the explanation of the rather bulbous appearance to the back of its rather flat head. Would this be better; "Unlike other Mascarene parrots, the bones on the top if its head (parietal bones) gradually slope to an angle at the back of its head."? I am not sure to follow on with; "... giving the appearance that the top of its head is somewhat flat." Snowman (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it should be omitted entirely that the skull was dorsoventrally flattened just because this feature is found in other parrots as well. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I find dorsoventrally flattening of the parrot skull hard to visualise, but it is supported in the references that it does not occur in other Mascarene parrots. Snowman (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "In other parrots with substantial sexual dimorphism in beak size, the sexes prefer food of different sizes, the males use their beaks in rituals, and the sexes have specialised roles in nesting and rearing." Is this true? I am struggling to think of examples of this. Snowman (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm no parrot expert, but that's what the source says.

What evidence does the article draw on? Does it list sources for this? There are three possibilities in the statement relevant to sexual dimorphism. Can you give one parrot example for each of the three possibilities? Snowman (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Which parrots have substantial sexual dimorphism in beak size? I am only aware of what I tend to think of as small differences in beak size due to sexual dimorphism. I do not know what parrot species it might refer to. I am not a parrot expert. Snowman (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I added them a while ago. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

So what? Added what a while ago? Your reply does not seem to me influence the current problem. Snowman (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The names of parrots with similar dimorphism. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. I probably sounded puzzled, because I did not see the new edits in the middle of article. I will try to find out more about parrot beaks, but not today. Snowman (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

From Hume "Sexual dimorphism in bill size is also common to other parrot genera, with males of Palm Cockatoo Probosciger aterrimus stenolophus and North Island Kea Nestor meridionalis septentrionalis being 24.8% and 12.3% larger than female in exposed culmen length respectively (Moorehouse et al. 1999)." FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Kea = Nestor notabilis. New Zealand Kaka = Nestor meridionalis. North Island Kaka (subspecis)= Nestor meridionalis septentrionalis. The article contains North Island Kea wikilinked and this is a redirect you created to New Zealand Kaka; see here. I am puzzled by this redirect, because a Kea is a different species to a Kaka. Also, Keas only live on the south island. Island Incidentally, both Keas and Kakas have sexual dimorphism of beak size. Snowman (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I obviously didn't make it up, so it must be a common name for that particular subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, Keas only live on the south island. As far as I am aware, there is no such entity as a North Island Kea. However, Kakas have a south island and a north island taxa. The binomial name in the book looks correct, but not the common name. Did you transcript a misprint to the Wiki. In the journal article is "North Island Kea" a misprint for "North Island Kaka". I have done a web-search and found no hits for North Island Kea. We would use IOC names on the Wiki anyway. Snowman (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

So what would be the alternate common name for that subspecies? FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Which sub-species? Snowman (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have used an alternative ref for beak size and used the species name. Is there a reason why it should only apply to one sub-species of New Zealand Kaka? Did the journal mean the Kea? With its possible typo, what does the journal mean? I think that the redirect North Island Kea should be deleted, so I have started a discussion on the WP Birds talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Nestor meridionalis septentrionalis. FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

North Island Kaka = Nestor meridionalis septentrionalis (see also above). It is in the Wiki article about the species. Not North Island Kea, which I presume is a typo. Snowman (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Re File:Latania loddigesii seeds.jpg; please give an indication of the size of these seeds. Snowman (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's an image from the Hume paper[8], maybe it can help.

If it does, then perhaps information gleaned may be helpful in the article. Snowman (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The scale bar would indicate that the seeds photographed are about 8 inches in diameter. Are they like coconuts? Snowman (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to implement it. It's like the musket bullet discussion we had back when Solitaire was at FAC. I'd say it would border on original research if we went ahead and measured one photo, and then applied the value to another. Maybe some sources specifically about those seeds contains an average size. FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Inches? The scale bar represents 10 mm. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I was looking at them thinking that were big seeds and I wrongly thought that the scale was 10 cm long. Why not put in the article the approx size of the nuts? Readers might be interested and it might help to explain the big beak. The trouble is that there are no visual aids to size the nuts in the photograph shown in the article. Snowman (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am not entirely sure of the source of one or two of the images shown on this page, because the exact image is not seen on the link provided on Commons to the source. Someone usually checks the images on potential FAs for problems. Snowman (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Which ones?

An image specialist usually checks the images on potential FAs for problems probably in a systematic way. It would not be very difficult to check all the image sources yourself and see if the exact image the exact size is seen on the linked page. Snowman (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I've uploaded most of them myself, and I know the source of all of them. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the source websites have changed. I can not find an exact duplicate of File:Psittacus mauritianus.jpg on the links page, but I might have missed something. Snowman (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's because I've cropped and greyscaled it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I see what you have done now, so I was wrong about the source not being apparent. However, it was a surprise to me that you uploaded a very different version over the original, because I would not have done it that way. I would have uploaded the "cleaned" version to a new file name, and tagged the original with an "original tag". I think that there are some guidelines about not uploading very different versions over the originals this on Commons. I think that it would be helpful if the original had its own file name rather than being "under" the cleaned version. Snowman (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not done a systematic image check. Snowman (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I uploaded it, so I get to decide. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, "you uploaded it" will suffice here. However, I think that it would be better if you used {{Original}} on an original old image and upload a new modified version to a new file name with links to and from each, unless the modifications are minimal. Generally, on Commons, I believe it is not a matter of uploader chooses, because there are guidelines on Commons about this with reasons. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm a Commons admin, they can take it up with me if they've got s problem, heheh. Anyway, captions on images are also advised against, and the resolution is very low anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have been editing on Commons for 5 year, 10 months and 21 days and you have only been editing on Commons for 5 years, 5 months and 16 days. Snowman (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've been more active, though. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• "holotype"; jargon. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As for holotype, you want type specimen instead? FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I wikilinked it (before I saw FunkMonk's reply). One of the nice things about articles like this is you can surf from them and learn other concepts. --Stfg (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what holotype means, so do I have to read another page to find out? Snowman (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No one expects the reader to know every word in an article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a convincing answer. Snowman (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am puzzled why you have not included the indication that the parrot had sexual dimorphism in general body size. Is this an omission? See journal notes. Snowman (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled that you missed this: "Fossils show the males were larger, measuring 55–65 cm to the females' 45–55 cm. The size difference between male and female skulls is the largest among parrots, but differences in the bones of the rest of the body and limbs are less pronounced." FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a mistake in thinking that it was an omission, but it is not in the introduction. Only head size is in the introduction and I think body size is important enough to be included as well. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added general body size in the introduction, which I think should be alongside an account of head size in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have found a bit more about its large sexual dimorphism in general body size on page 51, which I think I meant to refer to, but got distracted with skill size rather than body size. I have added it to the article. Snowman (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sometimes the article refers to "fossils" and sometimes to "sub-fossils" and at times I think that it is referring to the same bones. I might be wrong, but I think a fossil is different to a sub-fossil, so I presume all the uses of these two words can not be correct all of the time in the article. Anyway, I do not know why some are called fossils and some subfossils. Snowman (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. It was added that the bird was "hunted heavily", sourced to the IUCN, which again cited Cheke and Hum. But this is over interpretation, no contemporary source mentions hunting or even consumption of this bird, and Cheke and Hume never say "hunted heavily" or anything like that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "predation by humans" in the introduction. This fact does not occur elsewhere in the article. Snowman (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think "easy prey" is more than a hint, no? FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are extrapolating this hint that would tend to support human predation (or hunting), then it would seem inconsistent that you claim that; "no contemporary source mentions hunting or even consumption of this bird, and Cheke and Hume never say "hunted heavily" or anything like that.". Lets not leave it to a hint in the article. The article should say clearly if there is evidence for hunting by humans or not or and then this can be put in the introduction. The summary should not make a statement that is not in the article. Snowman (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

But there is zero proof of hunting, so perhaps the intro should be worded a little more cautiously. FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If the introduction did not make that statement that you claim has no evidence to support it, then the article might become internally consistent on this point. Also, could the hunting evidence be clarified in the last paragraph, so that readers need not guess what is not written in the article. Snowman (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The intro is fixed. And what do you mean by hunting evidence? That there is none? The sources don't outright state this, they just list possible extinction scenarios. so that would be kind of OR. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not explain these extinction scenarios or hypotheses? That is not OR. Perhaps, it could be made into a thoughtful end to the last paragraph without OR. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's already there. It boils down to habitat loss and predation by humans and invasive species. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Raven Parrot", is there a source for this common name. The IUCN has Mauritius Parrot as an alternative common name. Snowman (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Raven Parrot" is used in at least Extinct Birds (2012). Not sure about "Mauritius Parrot", since the Mauritius Parakeet also seems to be referred as such sometimes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

We have Cuban Parrot and Cuban Parakeet. Snowman (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "Raven Parrot" is unreferenced in the article. Snowman (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• The Cheke, A. S.; Hume, J. P. (2008). book has 480 pages, so page numbers will need to be added for each in-line citation; see Google books. Snowman (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Only a handful ...": from the introduction. I think that readers whose first language is not English might not understand this phrase. Why not say something like "Only a small number ...". If there is only a small number, then why not provide a number or number range? Snowman (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I see that it has been changed to "a few". Can these few accounts be counted and the number provided? The introduction is precise about the number of depictions saying that there are three. The introduction goes on to say; "matched both descriptions", which suggests that there are two descriptions or refers to two of them. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The Broad-billed Parrot was first referred to as the "Indian Raven ..."; I think that the term "Indian Raven" should not be used in the introduction since the word "Raven" had a different meaning to the 17th century Dutch people to what a reader of this Wiki article might take it to mean. Centuries ago, "Raven" could have meant a macaw, a hornbill or a raven in some European languages. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Support: I edit bird articles and I have edited parts of this article, so I might have a conflict of interest, but I have attempted to be objective. I do not see anything in the article content that would prevent it from achieving FA standard. However, I have not checked MoS systematically and there may me a number of MoS issues and reference formatting to sort out; for example, a page number in the in-line reference for Rothchild's book and so on. Snowman (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You only made your edits after it was already at FAC, and you've helped improve the article a lot, whereas you could also just had added comments here. So I see no problem myself. Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My support is made in anticipation that page numbers and formatting of in-line references and a number of other issues will be fixed. Snowman (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is taking longer to sort of reference formatting and some other issues than I expected, so at this juncture I have withdrawn my support for FA. Snowman (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, too bad. Is it an oppose, then? You still need to show that the ref issue you brought up has anything to do with actual FA criteria. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

FA criteria includes all of MOS. There are some issues in the introduction. Verification is important in the Wiki and you report below that there are missing page numbers (or page ranges) to a book source. As I explained above, my support would be provisional to some issues being settled and citations being satisfactory. As far as I am aware, missing page numbers in citations are inconsistent with FA status. I think an an article with inadequate verification would not be promoted to FA status. Snowman (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What's with the intro? You haven't mentioned this before. As for missing page ranges, that's a different issue from the "smaller ranges" (which are apparently not mentioned in the actual MOS), and can be easily fixed (will be now). FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments by Cwmhiraeth

I have been looking at the article's prose and consider it to be very well written in general. Here are a few points that struck me: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "It is unclear what species it is most closely related to" - Should read "It is unclear to what species it is most closely related"

Forgive me, but no. Right now I have in front of me both Bernstein's Modern Guide to English Usage and Claire Kerwald Cook's Line by Line. Both approve the preposition-at-the-end construction. Berstein is very scathing about attempts to avoid it. Remember "Up with this I will not put". --Stfg (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"I will not put up with this" does not end in a preposition. :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, nor it does, but do you not wonder, then, up with what Winston would not put? I'm trying to be delicate while saying that the first construction is well-attested and the second (imho) horribly stilted. --Stfg (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked it up in Fowler's Modern English Usage and I see that he agrees with your position. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciated. --Stfg (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• "It had a large beak, comparable to that of the Hyacinth Macaw, to crack hard seeds open." - I think this could be better expressed.

Could you be specific? --Stfg (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You could add "to enable it" but now I come to look further at this paragraph of the lead I see that you have mentioned the beak, gone on to the plumage and returned to the beak. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Right you are. The first mention is about the head and beak together, while the second applies to the beak only, so it's very hard to roll them together. But we definitely shouldn't state that it had a large beak as if it were new information twice in one paragraph. Revised to avoid that, and to include the enabling. --Stfg (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have brought some new information to the main text and also to the introduction, so I have amended this paragraph again. It might need further copy-editing. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• " In 1868, Hermann Schlegel examined an unlabelled pen and ink sketch (attributed to the artist Joris Joostensz Laerle) in the just rediscovered 1601 journal of the Dutch East India Company ship Gelderland, identified it as depicting the parrot described by Owen, and made the connection with the old journal descriptions" - I think this sentence is too long and convoluted.

So it is. Please check my attempt to unravel it. --Stfg (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Sea levels were lower during the Pleistocene, so it was possible for species to "island hop" to some of the then less isolated islands." - does your reference #3 apply to this statement?

Yes, but not in the section about this species specifically, because it applies to all the parrot species in the Mascarenes. FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I meant about the sea levels being lower. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The source says: "For parrots to reach isolated archipelagos such as the Mascarenes, it is probable that sea level changes provided opportunities for island-hopping. During periods of lower sea levels that occurred during the Pleistocene, some low stands continued for tens of thousands of years and were up to 145 m lower than present (Haq et al. 1987; Rohling et al. 1998)." FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• In the section "Description" you need imperial equivalent dimensions.
• "Anodorhynchus macaws eat very hard palm nuts and are habitual ground dwellers,[3] and Carlos Yamashita has suggested that they once depended on now extinct South American megafauna to eat fruits and excrete their seeds, but later they relied on domesticated cattle for this function." - I had to read this sentence several times and then go on to the following one before I realised what you were getting at.

I've untangled the sentence a bit, but am not sure whether this addresses your concern. If not, can you put your finger on where the problem lies? --Stfg (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of "... seeds that had passed through the gut of now-extinct South American megafauna". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

From the Hulm paper on page 13; "The cattle do not swallow the seeds but expel them after rumination." So it sounds like cattle eat large seeds and spit them out, but this explanation might be too anthropomorphic. Snowman (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Not all South American megafauna are extinct, so what about the living megafauna? Snowman (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't imply that they are all extinct, but only that the ones Yamashita thinks the parrot depended on are. --Stfg (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The bird is believed to have become extinct by the 1680s, when the palms it may have specialised in were harvested on a large scale." - Presumably you are speaking about palm fruits here?

Well, the palms themselves were harvested, not the fruits. And thanks for fixing a lot of these issues, Stfg, and thanks for the review, Cwmhiraeth.FunkMonk (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So, what was the nature of their specialism? Their diet is unclear, so did they sleep in holes in the trunk or dangle on the fronds? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The source only says the following, so I'm not sure if we can interpret it: "On Mauritius, Lophopsittacus mauritianus disappeared by the 1680s at a time when large-scale harvesting of endemic palms was taking place (Barnwell 1948:48). These parrots may have been palm specialists." FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hey guys, just so you know, I have a huge assignment to finish by Friday, so I will not be able to edit so much until then. I've already wasted too much of my writing time here, heheh. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Back again, Cwmhiraeth's issues should be fixed.

Comments changed to Support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose - I've seen this article develop and it has polished up nicely. Only minor issue is I'd use the plants' common names to break up bluelinks in the diet section, however this is dependent on all plant species having common names, and looks odd otherwise, so not actionable maybe. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not yet; various issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• The last account, and the only mention of specific colours, is by Johann Christian Hoffman in 1673–5:

• See WP:YEAR: "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)." Please review throughout.

• Fixed, and everything adjacent to ndashes checked. --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Inconsistent citation format with author names, one example only, there are others:

• 6.^ Newton, E. (1876). "XXVII.-On the psittaci of the Mascarene Islands". Ibis 18 (3): 281–289. doi:10.1111/j.

• 8.^ Newton, Edward; Gadow, ...

• This inconsistency sometimes results from using cite DOI template which allows individual editors to fill in different styles by manually editing the template (in other words, it's not possible to maintain consistency in an FA as the criteria require, since another editor using the doi template in another article may change the style); the cite doi template is also susceptible to errors (since it can be manually complted), and worse, they are susceptible to vandalism (see that "edit" button? anyone can-- corrupting your citations).

• Smith, G. A. (1975). "Systematics of parrots". Ibis 117: 18–17

• Speaking of susceptible to error and vandalism, 18–17 ? Again, those cite doi templates often have errors which you (the FA writer) can't control because someone else may edit that template and introduce an error (or vandalism); using cite journal would avoid that.

I usually like citing authors using their full last name, but the rest as single letters. So I'll just change it to that. As for vandalism and use across articles, I'm the only one working on extinct Mascarene bird articles it seems, so I'll keep it consistent, and vandalism can be reverted. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

See examples in WP:CITE/ES. In the "Books" section it says "there are good reasons to include the full names of authors; such information makes it much easier to find the cited work, and it also makes it possible to find other related information by the same author." Snowman (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Many times, only initials are used by authors, so if we want consistency, there's no choice. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hume, J. P.; Walters, M. (2012). Extinct Birds. London: A & C Black. ISBN 140815725X.

• No page nos. Together, these citation formatting issues indicate that an audit of the citations may be needed.

• In 2007, however, Hume reclassified this parrot as a species of genus Psittacula ...

• Why the however? (See here and here for sample discussions of the overuse of however.) Please review throughout.

• All instances of "however" reviewed. This and the next removed. --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Contemporary accounts, however, do not corroborate this, ...

• Same, don't see what the "however" is accomplishing.

• Removed. --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Little is known about the behaviour of the Broad-billed Parrot. Sexual dimorphism in beak size is also common in other parrots, for example in the Palm Cockatoo and the New Zealand Kaka.[3][15] In parrots and other bird groups with such dimorphism, the sexes prefer food of different sizes, the males use their beaks in rituals, or the sexes have specialised roles in nesting and rearing.

• The jump between "Little is known about ... " to "also common in other parrots" is unexplained (and "also" is redundant). The reason for the second sentence being there only becomes apparent after reading on several sentences, which forces the layreader to backtrack to understand why we jumped from one concept to another ... there is a flow problem. It may not be apparent to folks accustomed to bird articles, but the layperson has to struggle to sort out what is being said because of the awkward flow.

• Right you are. It's also a jump from the very general "little is known about behaviour" to the very specific point about morphology. I've moved the part related to dimorphism to its own paragpraph. Funkmonk, please could you identify which citation applies to the second half of the second paragraph? --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll just remove the little is known disclaimer. Can't see a difference in citations. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• The large difference between male and female head size may similarly have been reflected in the ecology of each sex, but today it is impossible to determine how.

• Today is redundant, and WP:MOSDATE#Precise language. The sentence is awkward.

• "today" emphasised that it might once have been possible, but I've removed it, and otherwise slightly modified the word order. --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• The head was evidently blue, and the beak may have been red being a characteristic of Psittaculini.

• ??? Prose.

• <sigh> Yup. Fixed. --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not do a complete review; those are random issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

All mentioned issues should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: A recent edit created the sentence "In 2007, Hume reclassified it as a species in the genus Psittacula based on comparison of subfossils and 17th and 18th century descriptions, and called it Thirioux's Grey Parrot.^{Hume, J. P. (2007). page 17.}". I've corrected the grammar so that "based on" references the comparision, but couldn't resolve the ambiguity. Is it intended to mean "based on comparison of subfossils and on 17th and 18th century descriptions" or "based on comparison of subfossils with 17th and 18th century descriptions"? And the citation format needs fixing. --Stfg (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, I've just restored the version that was grammatical and unambiguous and had a well-formatted citation. Please take more care. Dropping this from my watchlist now. --Stfg (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that you have restored a version that is clunky and difficult to read. I have resorted an earlier version, which I think has the correct emphasis. Further page 17 is the correct page number for the in-line citation and I see nothing wrong the the formatting of the in-line citation. Perhaps, ==Cited works== should be restored, because there are different pages cited from the same works. I explained in my edit summary that page 17 was the correct page source, so I do not know why there is confusion about the formatting on the in-line reference. Please note that there are citations from pages 4-16, page 51, and page 17 of the Hulm paperSnowman (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My impression was that full inline bibliographic citations and short footnotes should not be mixed, but I can't find a clear statement of that in WP:CITE, so apologies if I was mistaken about that. If ==Cited works== is to be restored, it should be done consistently and by consensus, per WP:CITEVAR. (I don't wish to influence that issue one way or the other.) You have restored the ambiguity explained in my initial comment, which I've un-struck, so if you insist on that form of the sentence, please find a way to resolve it. I'm tired of mopping up this stream of grammatical errors and ambiguities, and am out of here. --Stfg (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is standard to use sort citations (see WP:CITESHORT) to deal with multiple pages cited from one book, so I assume that short citations are simply added whenever they are needed. I see the formatting of citations as a work in progress, and I suspect that some of the other sources might need short citations as well, but this might be too presumptive. I think that the earlier complex sentence did not deal with the parrots on Reunion satisfactory. The topic could be expanded to explain more clearly, but I opted for a simplification and excluded the Reunion parrots. Snowman (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a bit too late to implement such a drastic change, especially since it hasn't been mentioned earlier, and wouldn't impact the status of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Short citations were not needed earlier, but now there are citations to three different pages (or page ranges) of the same source. I think that adding short citations at this juncture would be progress and I do not think that is would be a drastic change. Articles have a uniform structure on the Wiki for general ease of access and formatting of in-line citations need to be according to guidelines and MoS in FAs. Snowman (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what's the proper way to handle it then? I find the style used on for example Mauritius Blue Pigeon a bit confusing and a lot of unnecessary work to keep up. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The formatting of the citations for "Mauritius Blue Pigeon" must have taken a lot of hard work and attention to details. I was not suggesting anything so complicated as that for this article. Looking ahead, if you are going to put the extinct island parrots in a featured topic, then I would have thought that it would be optimal to use the same sort of approved formatting in each article; however, it might not be essential for FA of FT. I was thinking more along the lines of the style of Cockatoo, which looks easy to implement in the Broad-billed Parrot article. For more informed planning, it would be useful to know how many different pages (and page ranges) were used for each of the sizeable sources that currently do not have any pages numbers. Of course, there are several different approved styles for in-line citations and opinions from more people would be welcome. Snowman (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to give more than one page range for a single book in the template, instead of making different citations for each range? Like for example "30-40, 50-80"? FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, page ranges as big as that are put in different citations. I would say that your example of page ranges "30-40, 50-80" should definitely be have a citation for each range. Are these the actual page ranges that you would wish to incorporate into the Wiki article? I also think that the page range "50-80" (31 pages) is probably too large and that smaller page ranges should be used. The page numbers in citations are for ease of verification. Of course, it would tend to make verification difficult when there is more than one page range. I would also look at the sub-divisions in the source. If information taken for the Wiki is in different chapters or different sections a chapter of a source, then it probably would not be suitable to give a large page range spanning sub-divisions in the source. If you have taken information from page 30 and page 40 and none of the pages in between, then someone might look at all of the pages instead of just the relevant pages, so it be helpful to state the specific pages in this case. I am not sure how detailed MoS is on this. I think an element of common sense would apply to the aim of making verification easy. Page numbers are still missing in some the in-line references to sizeable sources. Snowman (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just an example, the ranges are nowhere near that big, three pages at most. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are in doubt, so I suspect that it would be better to use separate citations to be on the safe side. It seems to me that the lack of page numbers to some of the sources is incompatible with FA status. I hope that you will find the necessary missing page numbers when you have some spare time. Snowman (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in doubt about the ranges or locations, just in how necessary it is to implement this. I'd like to hear some more views, since this hasn't been brought up in previous FACs I've worked on that used this citation style. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I did intend to mean that you seem to be uncertain about what to do about formatting or organisation of the in-line citations. Please advance this discussion and state the actual pages or/and page ranges that you used as sources. MoS gives a fairly clear account on how to quote page numbers and page ranges in a variety of citation styles. I am certain that it is inconsistent with MoS to have no page numbers in a citation to a book of hundreds of pages. I started to look for FAs that you have worked on and the first two that I found included citations with page numbers and page ranges that I think are not good enough for FAs. Sometimes, I think the problem in your previous FAs is that it may not have been clear that a source is a sizeable book, because a url to an on-line example of the book had not been included. It might be informative to look at FAs that you have not worked on for examples of citation formatting and organisation. Snowman (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, what can I say? If it was overwhelmingly accepted during previous reviews, it can hardly be an oversight, so why should it be a problem now? It's a lot of extra work, and if it isn't severely needed or widely asked for, I'll refrain form doing it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If it is a lot of work to include the missing page numbers to sources in this article, then I would anticipate that it would also be a lot of work for anyone to verify the information that you have extracted from sources without page numbers. Snowman (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really. That's what indexes in the end of books are for. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Snowman gives an example of 20 and 30 page ranges (I'm not seeing any). At any rate, we don't typically cite specific pages in journal articles, but we do need to cite manageable page ranges in books. If the ranges are two, maybe three pages, ok, but otherwise, no-- we don't send our readers searching through book indexes or 10, 20 or 30 pages to verify text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It was a hypothetical discussion about page ranges and these examples of page ranges were originally raised by User FunkMonk in this edit. There may not be any actual page ranges this size in the article. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The ranges are three pages at most in Cheke Hume 2008. But they're spread throughout the book. FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "but they're spread throughout the book". Can readers easily verify book text, or are we sending them to search the index as you indicated above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The book has several sections that focus on specific issues about Mascarene life. So almost each chapter has new info about each species covered. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The on-line version (the url is in the citation template) shows only selected pages. It has chapter numbers, but no page numbers are visible. Snowman (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Second look by SandyGeorgia:

• The page range issue mentioned above needs to be resolved, if in fact page ranges are relying on book indexes or specifying ranges of more than a few pages.
• Citations are inconsistent: we have some page or pages, and other p. or pp. Pick one style.
• There are WP:ENDASH problems in the citations.

The two last are probably the result of using templates like cite doi and cite pmid which are prone to inconsistencies and errors, since any editor can fill them in. If you're using those kinds of templates, instead of cite journal, you'll always need to check your citations for consistency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In the previous FACs I've worked on, page ranges were not required for scientific papers, only for books. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct (I said that above). When citing a journal article, it is typically OK to cite the entire article page range. When citing a book, more precision is needed; we don't send readers thumbing through book indexes, as you indicated above. I did not find instances where you are doing what Snowman says, but wanted to clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of my comments above were hypothetical, based on examples of what might be done for certain page ranges and so on. Snowman (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, all end dash issues are in manually filled out templates. And there is no reliance on the index from my part. As for picking one style for pages, do you mean stuff like this "Hume, J. P. (2007). page 17."? It stands out, and I do not like how it is implemented. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I do not see how "The ranges are three pages at most in Cheke Hume 2008. But they're spread throughout the book" (see this edit) is consistent with the one current page range of 23-25 in the article. Snowman (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That's right, I think I was halfway implementing your suggestion, and then forgot about it. Those pages are about the 19th century identification of the bird. I'f more page ranges could be added within that same citation, or if the entire ranage form first to last mention could be used, it would be less confusing. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that I have found the descriptions in chapter 1 or 2 and details of waves of island hopping in chapter 3, and I have not found the other source pages. Due to the source pages spanning the whole book, I think that separate pages (or narrow page ranges) should be used in separate citations. I think that separate citations would make verification easier, reduce confusion, and would be necessary for FA status. Snowman (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see some progress and I think that it would be helpful if you added the missing page numbers, which is essential for verification. Snowman (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Remaining to do

• To get on with this, let's see what's left to fix. The remaining problems are with citation style and with page ranges, as far as I understand. Snowman wants more specific page ranges instead of a broad page range for some of the books, and SandyGeorgia wants uniform citation styles. I'm not sure how these issues are compatible? The only break of style continuity is the specific page range citation added by Snowmanradio. No one has demonstrated yet that a page range can be "too large" according to FA criteria. FunkMonk (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Pleased do not point to me for introducing inconsistencies in the style of the citations. I see it differently. I had added a ==Cited texts== subheading, which would give a consistent citation format similar to the formatting in the Cockatoo FA article. However, this was removed by this edit by user Stfg. Work on citations is still in progress. FA criteria include all of MOS. Snowman (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

But yet again, I have seen no evidence that smaller page ranges are required for an FA, and it was not brought up during previous FACs I worked on. Where is this MOS criterion you keep referring to? FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you blind to what User SandyGeorgia says in this edit above?. She said "If the ranges are two, maybe three pages, ok, but otherwise, no-- we don't send our readers searching through book indexes or 10, 20 or 30 pages to verify text." Snowman (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

She was obviously referring to the non existent 30 page ranges, which is a non-issue, since it was just a random number. And I still haven't been shown anything directly from the MOS in regard to "short ranges", only hand waving. In any case, if we are supposed to use the smaller ranges, I'd like to know how best to implement this. STFG took issue with the version Snowman proposed, and SandyGeorgia seems to have done so too, so what's the alternative? FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware that User SandyGeorgia specifically objected to a "Cited texts" sub-heading used in a standard way as seen on the "Cockatoo" FA article. I note your recent edit made earlier today where you have changed a book page range to "pages= 23–172", which I think is much too large and inconsistent with FA status, because it makes verification difficult. The actual page range currently used in the article is 150 pages (including page 23 and 172). See WP:V. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I give up; I've lost a long and detailed response three times to edit conflict and computer issues. Yes, when I first raised the issue, it was in reference to Snowman's imaginary page ranges, of which I saw none. But now I do see one, to a 150-page range, which is not verifiable. Yes, the 150-page range is a problem; please fix it, and I will then review again for citation consistency. This is not a MOS issue; it is a verifiability issue. We cannot cite a 150-page range; that is the equivalent of telling our readers, "the information is verifiable, but you'll have to read the whole book to find it". You can put Hume in the Cited Texts, and just use a short form for each citation like:

• Cheke and Hume (2008), p. 123.

The form used at Cockatoo is fine; there are other acceptable ways to do this, but we do not send readers to search through 150 pages to verify text. On journal articles, we typically cite the article and give the full page range, but on books, specific page numbers (or at most a manageable range of a few page numbers) is needed. I will recheck for citation consistency once that is done. Citation consistency and the page range issue are unrelated, but I cannot check for consistent citations until the citations are stable. If the text is not verifiable to shorter page ranges, I will move to oppose; this FAC has grown so long that I suggest the delegates will need to restart it for a fresh look. Sorting out the citations should not be such a big deal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you have more issues, Sandy? FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, all I needed was confirmation of how to implement the different citation style without damaging anything in the process. So I guess it's a go, will finish it later today, and feel free to add the cited text thingy then, Snowman. As for restarting the page, as long as we keep the comments down here from now on, there shouldn't be a problem So let's not go back to earlier comments, if there's nothing that can't be added here. You mentioned something with the intro, Snowman, could you elaborate? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I would support a restart for a fresh look. Snowman (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should just get it over with. It seems the remaining issues are minuscule, what held it back for long was a combination of school-work, holiday, and that I wanted more views on the page range thing. And if I appear cranky here, it's because I just chipped a tooth. The FAC page is many times longer than the article itself, that's funny, though. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I would go along with your suggestion of continuing with this discussion to get it finished soon or the delegates suggestion of restarting to have a fresh look. Snowman (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Now Cheke & Hume 2008 has been split up. I haven't added the cited texts section, but is it even necessary? FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think a combination of citations with the full citation format and citations with the short citation format used with a section for relevant full citations to accompany the short citations would be the most convenient format to advance to and would have a reasonably tidy and compact style; see the Cockatoo FA for an example of this sort of citation style. It says; "Shortened footnotes are a hybrid of standard footnotes and parenthetical referencing (Harvard). They use in-text cites that link to a shortened reference in a list and a separate full reference list. The shortened reference may link to the full reference." at Help:Shortened footnotes. I think that a "Cited texts" section is required. Snowman (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it works and how to add it. What goes in it? FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There citations to Check & Hume 2008 are now five separate citations that would make verification easier. I have added a Cited texts section. Snowman (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Problem source page: I added new information to the article from page 51 of Hume, J. P. (2007), but you changed it with this edit (without an edit summary) to a different part of the long review paper. I know that page 51`is the correct page source, because I read the page myself and added the new text to the page myself. Have you seen page 51? Why did you change it? Snowman (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The same info is found within the 4–17 page range that is already there (and which is where I read it), so there's no need for a separate one. And thanks for the cited text section. FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you state the exact page to find the information within the range 4 to 17. I used page 51, where I thought the information was presented clearly. Please remember to write good edit summaries particularly when cooperating with others as part of a team. Snowman (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I will have a look at the information in the paper within the range 4 to 17, when you inform me of page number. I will see what it says there and access if 51 is a better page source or not. I am likely to be busy today and perhaps for a few days, so it might take me a few days to focus on these issues and to reply. Snowman (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Page 10 says that the sexual dimorphism of the head is larger than any other parrot, but it does not refer to the sexual dimorphism of general body size as well as page 51. I can not see anywhere on page 10 that says that the sexual dimorphism of general body size of the Broad-billed Parrot is greater than any living parrot. Perhaps, this is why you did not notice it in the page range 4 to 16 when you wrote earlier drafts of the article. Snowman (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have restored page 51 for the source on information on sexual dimorphism on general body size. Snowman (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, alright. What then, other issues? FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Are you confident that the pages and page ranges in all the other citations are accurate? Are all the pages and page ranges stable now? Snowman (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I went through the index and checked all occurrences of the bird to be sure. And many of the older papers can be found at the bottom of this page, if you want to check: http://extinct-website.com/extinct-website/product_info.php?products_id=490 It is generally a good source for 19th century articles about extinct birds, and where I find most of such that I use. In turn, I've noticed the owner actually uses text and images from Wikipedia as well. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine. In my opinion, you are usually a safe pair of hands. Please note that mirrors of the Wiki are not usually used as sources, as far as I am aware. Snowman (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup, never cited the site itself, only the PDFs of old articles it hosts. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please reply to my comments about the introduction, which I have added as possible issues above. Snowman (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's on page ten. It is easy to search for words in PDFs, just search "dimorph". I've changed handful, as for not mentioning raven, that's what it was called in all Dutch accounts, and the word is mentioned in all sources about the bird, so is important in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not seen the sourced information about sexual dimorphism of general body on page 10, but I have seen it on page 51 (see above). Snowman (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I would support FA providing there is confirmation that page numbers and page ranges used in citations are stable. I have not systematically searched for MoS issues and readability issues, but I trust that reviewers have looked into this or are looking into this. Snowman (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC):

• "A 2012 genetic study..." The rest of the Taxonomy section is arranged chronologically, but this teeny tiny paragraph seems to have been injected in the wrong place.

The sentence is not about this particular species, but the Mascarene Parrot, so does not belong under taxonomy. It is mentioned as an obstacle to the "all parrots from the Mascarene islands are related" hypothesis. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Would it be easier to understand, if the genetic study was more obviously connected to the hypotheses that does not appear to fit the DNA findings? Snowman (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid of ending up in synthesis, but as it is, I think the problem is that people who read the paragraph think "Mascarene Parrot" somehow refers to the Broad-billed Parrot. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• "This is surprising". No it's not. See WP:EDITORIAL.

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• This article mentions the names of a lot of people, but does not give indications of who they are. The most concerning example is Julian Hume, who is first mentioned in the Description section. Is this guy a biologist? A historian? An artist? Any of these would be plausible.

Hume is described as "the English palaeontologist Julian Hume" under evolution. The rest should be alright too. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that mention of the lad, sorry. In that case, the convention I usually see (and prefer) is that the first mention includes full name and short description, and all subsequent mentions just use the surname. Using the full name later on may mislead readers into thinking that a new person is being introduced. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of Behaviour and ecology does not end with a citation.

Fixed, FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• "possibly confiding nature" What does this mean?

Would be island tameness, but is not said specifically in the source. So I don't know if it could be added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the interests of getting this thing buttoned up, what exactly does the source say? I took "confiding nature" to mean something along the lines of "lack of wariness", but "confiding" seems a bit of an odd word to use. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It says "Lophopsittacus must have provided a ready source of food for early mariners (Fig. 7a, and 7b). Its tame and confiding nature..." So perhaps we could write island tameness after all? FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, suggest use island tameness or else just quote "tame and confiding nature", whichever. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the palms it may have specialised in" How does one specialize in a palm? Did it eat the palm or did it live in the palm?

This was brought up before, but that is what the source says. It could mean they lived in them, it could mean they ate their nuts, etc, as specified earlier in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This part of the article has been brought up more than once, so I suspect that it needs rephrasing. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How about "the palms that may have sustained them"? FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If we're not sure what the source's phrasing means, perhaps it would be better to simply quote it directly and let the reader decide rather than just guessing. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we don't want to diverge from the sentence in the source, the original phrasing ("the palms it may have specialised in") is almost identical to that in the paper. But it is pretty certain that he means they sustained themselves on the palms, since he makes a case tor this elsewhere in the article (and there is no other way a bird can "specialise" in a palm). My only problem was that he does not say so specifically in the sentence about extinction, but that's probably just me being overly cautious. It isn't exactly "synthesis" when it's from the same paper. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all ok (PD age, own work). Sources and authors provided (tweaked some licenses for clarity and US-relevance). GermanJoe (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The alternative common name "Raven Parrot" which is seen in the introduction of the article is not referenced. The common name "Mauritius Parrot" is featured on the IUCN website on the species page. Snowman (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is referred to as Raven Parrot outside the 2008 and 2012 books Hume co-wrote. On the other hand, I've not encountered a single source that uses "Mauritius Parrot", I don't know where the IUCN got it from. I've ordered James Greenway's 1967 book which seems to be influential, perhaps it has some answers. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I think verification for the alternative common name of "Raven Parrot" is inadequate in the Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• If Greenway's book is influential then perhaps it should have been employed before now. That said, I see no objections to the article on the grounds of comprehensiveness so I'm ready to promote if we can resolve this last point to everyone's immediate satisfaction (including mine) -- "raven parrot" needs a reliable source or it shouldn't be in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Both remaining issues should be fixed now. I think most of Greenway's views are summarised in later sources, he is cited a lot at least. FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.