Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Passenger pigeon/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) 12:38, 11 March 2016 [1].

Passenger pigeon[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most famous bird species to have been exterminated by humans, but it was also notable for being a very unique pigeon when it existed. The last specimen died on September 1, 1914, so we missed the hundredth anniversary, but it is hoped that (if it passes here) the article could have a main page appearance on that date this year instead. This was originally intended to be a co-nomination with Rufous-crowned Sparrow, who worked on the article back in 2013 (giving the article a solid "skeleton"), but has since been absent from Wikipedia; I recently pulled myself together and finished my part of the work, and 7&6=thirteen has also made many additions. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

Thanks, sounds good. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • Is this written in American English? If so, place the {{American English}} template to the article's talk page
American, added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, change "The male was...The female was...The juvenile was" to "The males were...The females were...The juveniles were"; also do this in the Description section
This is how the sources say it, and is the norm in ornithological literature, which we generally follow. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, change "but hunting became intensified" to "but hunting intensified"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, change "This has been described..." to "It has been described..."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Taxonomy section, change "...International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature..." to "...International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN)..."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some American/British English inconsistencies. For example, I see coloration and coloured used.
Fixed that one, see others? FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You there, Dunkleosteus77? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to use American English, it may be best to use empirical units rather than the metric system (instead of cm to in, in to cm); both are actually used in the article, converting cm to in before the Ecology section and converting cm to in after the Ecology section. Be consistent and if you do fix it, use empirical units since this is written in American English
Can you have look at the unit issues, 7&6=thirteen? I'm not much of a numbers guy. There are also two more such issues listed below. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to ping User:7&6=thirteen another way... Did it work? FunkMonk (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Just reversed them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be something that occurs throughout the article, though, would it be possible for you to fix them all? FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I did. I again used FIND to look for "cm" and those all conform. The speed appears twice and is in the right format. So I don't know what else it is you want. Please point me in the right direction. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, makes sense, because the remaining issues are when the first number uses mm before in. There are also a bunch of places where "acres" are mentioned, but without any conversion following. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all the mms and inches. Just reversed. I guess we will have to manually do a hectares and acres conversion. Not sure what the template is. 17:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done 100 square miles ((260 km2) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, conversion can often be done by just writing an equation into Google... FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence in the Description section "It is a washed brown on the upper parts, wing covert, secondary feathers, and tail (where it would otherwise have been gray), and white on the primary feathers and underparts,[needs a conjunction or period] the normally black spots are brown,[consider putting a period here] and it is pale gray on the head, lower back, and upper-tail covert feathers, yet the iridescence is unaffected" is a run-on
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Description section, change "...to differentiate the bird's osteology from that other pigeons..." to "...to differentiate the bird's osteology from that of other pigeons...
Added "of". FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Description section, wikilink "musculus supracoracoideus"
There's no article, do you want a red link? FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try to explain it in the article. If you can't, then red link Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 03:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll link it then, I don't think it needs to be explained here past what is already written. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use either mph to kph or mi/h to km/h when converting units
 Done Just reversed them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Diet section, the fruit of dogwood is called Canadian dwarf cornel, Canadian bunchberry, or crackerberry (same fruit different name)
Specified. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Reproduction section, the sentence "ranging from 120 acres (49 ha) to thousands of hectares in size" is inconsistent with units
Was this done? FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Relationship with humans section, wikilink "Seneca"

Comment Didn't do that, as Seneca people is already linked earlier in the article. WP:Overlink? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the Hunting section, change "...that resulted in a large mass of flying, easily hit pigeons" to "...that resulted in a large mass of flying, easily hit, pigeons"
 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Relationship with humans section, you use the terms "Native Americans" and "American Indians". Pick one (I suggest Native American)
 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Hunting section, change "...the town of Plattsburg, New York, is..." to "...the town of Plattsburg, New York is..."
 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll go through the last points soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been in the review process for nearly a month. Shall I contact the FAC coordinators or let it continue review for a couple more weeks?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty common, though (I've waited far longer), articles are usually not archived "early" when they have a certain amount of comments, supports, and no opposes. Pinging coordinators won't bring more reviewers. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Images[edit]
  • change "...illustration of this species (a male)..." to "...illustration of the species (a male)..."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References[edit]
  • For all references that require one to sign into an account (when redirected to the given link), use {{Registration required}}, assuming registration is free, as with ref no. 14 (Johnson and Clayton et al.)
I've removed such URLs instead, they are redundant, since the DOI is already a link. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added all (many) relevant blue links to references. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went through all the citations and added any possible links. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that when I click on the links in this reference, there is a discrepancy as to the names of the authors.
Hung, C. M.; Shaner, P. J. L.; Zink, R. M.; Liu, W. C.; Chu, T. C.; Huang, W. S.; Li, S. H. (2014). "Drastic population fluctuations explain the rapid extinction of the passenger pigeon". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (29): 10636–10641. Bibcode:2014PNAS..11110636H. doi:10.1073/pnas.1401526111
I do not know why. Nor do I know how to resolve it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Nikkimaria[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the vocalization score
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Map-Ectopistes-migratorius.png: can we be more specific about the source - was this map published, is it held in an archive...?
Added book source to the file page, better? FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mershon's_The_Passenger_Pigeon_(frontispiece,_crop).jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added — to all page ranges per earlier Peer Review of this article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, and on this note, seems the link to that peer review is not working? FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Added link to earlier Peer Review of this article 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, is there any reason why the link to that peer review is red on the passenger pigeon talk page? FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was archived. Probably changed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Sort of. formatting is wrong. Not sure how to deal with the template. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better than before, at least. I had never seen that peer review before because the link didn't work... But nice that you made the request for it! FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing this article forever. Or so it seems. So I had 'local knowledge.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sainsf[edit]

This is a really comprehensive article with remarkable flawlessness in presentation, language and informativeness. Dunkleosteus77 has already taken care of Lead and the introduction of Taxonomy. I begin from where he/she left off.

Evolution[edit]
  • I find some vagueness at the start of Evolution. It was even suggested that the mourning dove belonged to the genus Ectopistes and was listed by some authors as E. carolinensis. Could we cite any article from those "authors"? Or a reword?
Mentioned one, though I'm not sure who made the recombination originally. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have often found there is trouble when simply names are mentioned without identity. For instance we do not know who Kevin P. Johnson and Fulton are. If you can not identify them then simply write a 2010 or 2012 study. The references already name the authors, so why invite vagueness?
Would something like "American geneticist" or "researcher" be enough? I've removed the first names of those that did not have articles, perhaps it's better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well we must get the professions correct. Sorry I could not see what changes you have made. Anyway I think the best way would be to say 2010/2012 study as you have done elsewhere. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the two latter names, but kept Beth Shapiro, since she has an article, and because she headed the first ever study... FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DNA in old museum specimens is often degraded and fragmentary, and passenger pigeon specimens have been used in various studies to discover improved methods of analyzing and assembling genomes from such material. DNA samples are often taken from the toe pads of bird skins in museums, as this can be done without causing significant damage to valuable specimens. This looks like it has more to do with the utility of this species to human beings rather than its evolution.
I can somewhat see what you mean, but I think it is relevant to mention the methods used and the importance of the species, as a "type example" for studies of extinct animal DNA. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I can not see where else this could fit in! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bird was able to hybridize with the Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) in captivity, though the offspring was infertile. If you are referring to this as an observation made during some study, and not as if such hybridization was natural and common, then mention when it was observed.
The case in point is Whitman's aviary described at length under "Last survivors". I was concerned I would add too much duplicate information if I explained that at length there, but I have clarified a bit, better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you should put all the info about this under Taxonomy where I think it would be more interesting. So you will also be saved from the duplication issue. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added all that seemed relevant there. The hybrids are only mentioned once again in the later section, as part of the explanation of what happened to the last surviving group. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed that all links used in the cladogram are duplicate.
That's common across all FAs I know of, it just makes it easier for the reader to know what all these names in succession refer to. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess Etymology could be made into a different section altogether, what has this got to do with the Taxonomy?
I can understand the concern, though as above, this is also common for FAs, and here the explanation of the scientific name at least is relevant to taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have not seen many FAs then let it be so if that's the style. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Description[edit]
  • "Iridescent" is a duplicate link.
Removed second time. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like carmine, I think rufous too deserves a link.
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plumage of the sexes was similar during their first year." I think "juvenile males show change in plumage after a year" better conveys the fact.
I think that would be an oversimplification, because I don't think the iridescence appeared in either sex until this time, therefore the female changed as well. But this is not clearly stated in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat[edit]
  • Why not link the United States just like the other countries under this section?
Linked at first mention now, which is under evolution. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ecology and behavior[edit]
  • ...it accounted for between 25 and 40% of the total... I guess here it would be better to write % as percent, adds to the MoS.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beechnuts" and "chestnuts" are duplicate links in Diet.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The detail about when the bird gained sexual maturity should come before going into the details of mating. At least it should not figure at the very end.
Heh, it is kind of a chicken and the egg situation, where the cycle should begin and where it should end. Now it is mentioned in relation to juveniles leaving the nest, because that part already deals with development to adulthood. I think it makes more sense there, since if it was added to the beginning, it would be a bit disjointed from the rest of that text, which starts somewhat "in medias res" with the adult birds finding nesting grounds... FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should state here itself that John James Audubon is a naturalist, not in the following section.
Not sure what is meant (since he is already described as a naturalist at first mention), that I remove the second mention of naturalist? There it is used collectively for Audubon and Wilson, though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the first mention? Is it not just above the second quote? Add the naturalist fact wherever it is, and no need to omit the second mention.Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First mention is before the first quote (right under the Ecology and behavior header)! FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry, I have been too inattentive here! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link incubation.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relationship with humans[edit]
  • International Union for the Conservation of Nature Add the abbreviation IUCN as you did for ICZN.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Last survivors, endling is a duplicate link.
Removed the first time which was an easter egg link. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General: "Observers", "many observers" are used continuously throughout the article. I am not sure if this should be treated as vague at some places, but if such repetition could be avoided and reworded, I think it would be better. Not much of an issue, though.

Cut some instances. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the impeccable writing and exploring of several details without deviating from the main topic. Also, I noted a positive point about this article, that much caution has been used about what all to link and maintain consistency, for instance linking just the geographical landmarks and not the States, I mean it's a good job! I have noticed only a few small flaws that once resolved should make the article all-perfect. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 18:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We'll go through these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quick response! Great, FunkMonk! We shall continue with the few things left. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support : All the issues I had raised have been appropriately addressed. So I feel the article should make a perfect FA. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the "last points" were all done. I did not add one link for as it appeared and was linked earlier in the article. That would be a matter of editorial judgment per WP:Overlink. I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No no, you're right to ping. I've been a bit busy and haven't reviewed as many FACs as I should. Consider this a placeholder.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to having cultural importance, .. - looks odd where it is as the flow seems chronological. In fact, I wonder whether it adds anything at all
though there were still millions of birds by the 1850s - works better as "in" rather than "by" I think
NB: I made these changes
  • Thanks, took your suggestions, and your edits look good! FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot - support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

It's an impressive article and illustrates our short-sightedness when dealing with other species. A few points:

  • "It has been described as one of the greatest and most senseless extinctions induced by humans." - This sentence needs rephrasing because the subject of the preceding sentence was not extinction.
"The eradication of this species has been described as one of the greatest and most senseless extinctions induced by humans." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lower throat and breast were richly pinkish-rufous and became a paler pink further down, and white on the abdomen and undertail covert feathers." - This sentence needs some attention.
Rephrased, better? FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description section could do with some wikilinking of the less familiar terms.
 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... scolding call. This call, described as "kee-kee-kee-kee" or "tete! tete! tete!", was used to call either..." - Too many calls!
Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were also records of stragglers from Scotland, Ireland, and France," - This is somewhat ambiguous, as if the stragglers originated in Europe.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such a number would likely represent a large fraction of the entire population at the time, if not all." - "if not all" seems a curious remark.
Reworded, better? Or do you mean the claim itself? FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... mainly persisting around 1/10,000 of the several billions estimated in the 1800s." - the meaning of this is unclear.
Changed, better? FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The American chestnut trees that provided much of the mast the passenger pigeon fed on" - Perhaps "on which the passenger pigeon fed".
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the day, it left the roosting forest to forage on more open land" - This is in the singular but the rest of this paragraph is in the plural.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "0.1 kg (0.22 lb) of acorns per day" - mostly you have been putting imperial measurements first.
Fixed. I see a few more inconcistensies under description, will fix them soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During this brooding period both parents took care of the nestling, with the males attending for midday." - I am unsure what the last part of this sentence means.
Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was of particular value on the frontier, and some colonies counted on the pigeon to support their population." - Perhaps the word "colonies" could be replaced here being somewhat ambiguous.
Changed to settlements. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During a nesting in 1871" - Could be better worded.
Changed around, better? FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scattered nestings are reported into the 1880s, but the birds were now weary," - They might well have been weary but I fancy you meant "wary".
Hehe, changed! FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, will fix these soon! FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All should now be answered, Cwmhiraeth. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Supporting on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Burklemore1[edit]

I'll have a look through sometime soon. As I'm very busy with things at the moment I won't be able to remain on Wikipedia as much as I wish to, so I apologize in advance. On first glance, however, this is one excellent article. Must have been immense work! Burklemore1 (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the article now. Will be leaving comments shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could link the word "rump" for those who are not familiar with morphological terms of birds and such. Whether or not it's a word many may know, it would still be convenient for others who would want to know more about it.
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly are tertial feathers? I'm familiar with the primary and secondaries, are these perhaps a third set of feathers?
Here's a diagram:[2] Linked in article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can, you could also explain or link keel, radius and ulna. Will add more later, looking good so far.
Linked keel. What do we need to know about the radius and ulna other than that they are wing bones? The sentence currently says "The wing bones (humerus, radius, ulna, carpometacarpus)". FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a work-in-progress for years. By a number of editors, upon whose shoulders we gratefully stand. Article information and statistics 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, two of the words in parenthesis are also wikilinked, so I think it would be nice to link the remaining terms if possible. Don't worry about explaining it either, that was my own error and have struck it. The work within those years seem to have paid off so far, I only have a few more comments once I have read over the remaining sections. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now linked. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon hatching, the nestling (or squab) was blind and sparsely covered with yellow, hairlike down." Unclear for me at the last bit, what do you mean by yellow, hairlike down? I've read the remaining sections of the article and could not find any noticeable problems, so once this has been addressed I can support.
Would a link to Down feather help? FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm not sure if it's what you meant, Burklemore1, I've added a link to down, since it might be useful in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading the link, it seems to be perfectly related to the sentence. Now that all my points have been addressed, I can now support this article for promotion. Well done to all who were involved in this colossal project. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just returned from a fortnight in Mexico, will review as soon as I catch up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim[edit]

One major problem before I review in detail. It's normal to write science articles in metric, although many projects outside physics also give US units in parentheses. That is the case even for regional endemics such as White-breasted Nuthatch, an existing FA. I see above why you changed, but I think that writing it as a US local topic (rather than a science article about a US species) is not in accordance with our normal practice and inconsistent with existing bird FACs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on this. Maybe it warrants some more opinions? Might you have a look at this, User:7&6=thirteen? FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a local (i.e., North American) article. But there aren't a lot of bird species that are truly world wide.
OTOH, the encyclopedia is world wide. And the adherence to English units of measurement (instead of metric) is idiosyncratic to the United States. If we had followed the law that was passed by Congress under the Carter administration (and repeated under Reagan) we all would have been metric a long time ago, and our children would be better off. The only hard part of metrics was converting to English measurements in the first place.
Economically and technologically, the U.S. is the tail and not the dog in the world. There are 7.3 billion people in the world, and a whole lot less in the USA. Eventually the States will come around.
So my feeling on this is that User:Jimfbleak is right, and we should put metrics first, then English. Just my opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I swap the measurements under description, can you take the rest of the article, User:7&6=thirteen? FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get to it for three days. I am up-to-my-ass-in-alligators in the real world in the interim. But I'll do it then. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, sounds kind of unpleasant! Cool, I'll fix description tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not totally unpleasant. Just real life deadlines. Maybe even a seriously good opportunity, but I have to comply if I want to get in line. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All measurements should be switched around now, Jimfbleak. And User:7&6=thirteen, I guess it depends on what "up-to-my-ass-in-alligators" means! FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the specific difference with the passenger pigeon compared to other bird FAs is that it has been extinct for over 100 years and contemporary references came from a time where imperial measurements were far more widely used. In the UK, modern engineering practices use metric for everything, but in Victorian times, it was all imperial. Heck, we only got rid of 12 pennies to the shilling 45 years ago! If you've swapped all the measurements to metric already, this point is moot, but I just thought it was worth making. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already done, but nice with some perspective! FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and a couple of comments Excellent stuff. Just a few things you might consider
  • offspring was infertile — unless you know there was only one chick, should be "were"
  • American behavior scientist —behavioural?
  • You don't need the species' name in the image captions, images are assumed to be of the article's topic unless otherwise stated

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will fix these soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed most. Left a few captions, where it might have created a bit of confusion without the name. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated
 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • GBooks links should be truncated, usually at page number
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for journals, and if so how these are formatted
  • Edition statements aren't typically part of the title
 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN44: is there a spelling error here?
Removed publisher, where the error occurred, as publishers are usually not mentioned in journal citations here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how chapters are formatted
  • FN71-72: do you have a secondary source to confirm the significance of this cultural reference?
I think you need to look at this one, User:7&6=thirteen. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done See Note A and references there under (currently footnotes 72, 73, 74, and 75).
Turns out that was a very good suggestion. I think the new sources and quotes add dimension to the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN94103: society name should be properly capitalized
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN110113: where are you getting this location?
It is the dateline of the article "Boston" Special to the New York Times. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for newspapers
  • Fn126135 has too much italicization
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN127136 should include publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Want to split these, User:7&6=thirteen? Six points for each... We should be pretty close to the end. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unaddressed issues[edit]

I think all of the issues that are indicated above have been addressed except for the following:

Source review - spotchecks not done
  • GBooks links should be truncated, usually at page number
 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for journals, and if so how these are formatted
 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how chapters are formatted
 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for newspapers

Hope that benchmark moves this along. Thanks for the reviews and helpful suggestions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure these days, but it seems spot-checks are mainly done when the nominators are inexperienced, or if there is a real concern about copyright violations. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's essentially correct; I don't think we need a spotcheck here. Now, are the outstanding source review points above taken care of? cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per my request, User: Magioladitis ran a fix on the citations.
15:33, 4 March 2016‎ Magioladitis (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (114,864 bytes) (0)‎ . . (WP:CHECKWIKI error fixes using AWB (11964)
Does that satisfy the concerns? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:GoingBatty has fixed references here, here and here. He also removed an external link that was used as a reference and combined references. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure from the many new comments, but have all these issues now been addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:7&6=thirteen, have all source issues now been addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor additions[edit]

Just a minor 'heads-up.' Footnotes #66 and #s 74-82 have been added, along with some minor text additions associated with the new citations. Just wanted to call this to your attention, so that you are not being reqjuired to 'recreate the wheel.' An external link or two were also added. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A miscellaneous error[edit]

Can somebody fix this please? 16:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks, User: ‎GoingBatty. Who also did some policing of the references, external links. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, all the source issues have been addressed.
Atsme added a few comments. These keep straggling in ('a Camel is a horse designed by a committee'), and sometimes it feels like we are looking for 'the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow'. I am sure she means well, and even that the comments (which I think you have now addressed) are well met. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, yeah, I had one question for Atsme (a she, btw), then it should be ready for further actions. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Atsme[edit]

Support - The article is nicely written and very informative. It certainly deserves promotion to FA. There are a few minor tweaks that I wanted to bring to your attention, although they are not deal breakers. I focused only on the lead.

  1. "The scientific name also refers to this feature." While it is grammatically correct since the preceding sentence describes "this", it may cause a reader to refer back for verification thereby interrupting flow. I recommend replacing "this feature" with "its migratory characteristics". Not a biggy.
  2. ..."physically similar" is ok, but "morphologically similar" is better for maintaining a more encyclopedic tone, especially considering the subsequent mention of genetics.
  3. "....eastern North America, but was also recorded elsewhere, and it primarily bred around the Great Lakes." Should be "...North America and was also recorded elsewhere, but bred primarily around..." The "ands" and "buts" are transposed. 😆
  4. "massive and industrial"? Commercialized is already mentioned, so I'm not sure what industrial means.
  5. The last paragraph of the lead can be tightened - "Passenger pigeons were hunted by Native Americans, but hunting intensified after the arrival of Europeans, particularlyrefers to a higher degree than is usual or average while especially singles out; both are correct in the 19th century. Pigeon meat was commercialized as cheap food, resulting in hunting on a massive scale for many decades. There were several other factors contributing to the decline and subsequent extinction of the species including shrinking breeding populations necessary for preservation of the species and widespread deforestation which destroyed habitat. A slow decline between about 1800 ..."
  6. "The eradication of this species has..." overuse of "the" and "this" - try "Eradication of the species has...."
  7. The last sentence needs to go since it was incorporated with the "many other factors..." sentence.

I am guilty of having a lead fetish. Atsme📞📧 16:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Took all the suggestions, though I think the following part is now a bit unclear? "including shrinking breeding populations necessary for preservation of the species" Maybe this could be "...shrinking of (the large?) breeding populations..."? FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol* I was up and at 'em early this morning - awakened by the sounds of a tornado warning on the iPhone!! It has been a busy morning. PS: I love this article!! Atsme📞📧 15:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, and woah, watch out! FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Passenger_pigeon/archive1&oldid=1144400051"