Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Australian Ringneck/1

Australian Ringneck

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: No consensus. After several arguments, it became unclear whether to fix or condemn, and very few editors bothered to take up a position. Thus a borderline article languishes on the edge of being good, and is presumed so for now. At least, however, the article has improved during the process. Editors are welcome to reopen a new GAR if they have a clear case. Geometry guy 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1a - Headings - conservation issues are in the "Taxonomy and naming" section.
Criteria 2a - There are relatively few citations in the "Description" section.
Criteria 3a - ~~The calls of the parrots are not mentioned, relevant to the name of the Twenty Eight Parrot.~~
Criteria 6 - Not well illustrated, there are four subspecies (and intermediates) but only two images. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note previous GAR here

1a -you could move the text

2a - Agree

3a - Agree

6 Images not required at GA

Week keep subject to further comments jimfbleak (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failing with criteria 6 (not well illustrated) is seen in the context that there are four subspecies that at one time were considered to be separate species, and the article has a whole paragraph of text describing differences between the subspecies. There are a range of photos on commons and suitable ones could be used to provide better illustration. Snowman (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised problems with this article that were not raised or considered in the previous GAR, and I regard the comments in the old GAR as largely irrelevant to this new GAR. Snowman (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that criteria 2a and 3a are not up to GA standard, then I do not understand your comment to keep this article as a good article. Snowman (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the original GAN when the article gained GA status lasted less than 6 hours from 06:52, 15 May 2006 to 12:30, 15 May 2006 and no discussion took place. Snowman (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its was review over 12 months ago why is the time an issue. Gnan garra 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the previous GAR and a there is a link to it above. Snowman (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

repsonses I'll work on he splitting the conservation out that easy,

criteria 6 says It is illustrated, if possible, by images:, if possible the available images on commons are of two species only.

2a How many citations do you want?

3a it explains the naming of twenty eight in relation to its call, what else is required?

Can you explain what your looking for with the rest of it Gnan garra 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2a - You are correct about the name of "Twenty eight" being in the article - my mistake. But 2a is still a problem because it is light on other details, such as; calls of other subspecies, number of eggs in a nest, pair bonding, predators, threats (besides the Rainbow Lorikeet), and their longevity. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3a - Depends on the sources; if it is all in one source, then one ref is enough. I find the description section not easy to read. Also, the Forshaw reference should have a page number or chapter to make verifiability easier.

6 - Commons uses the old classification and has two species, so this is a bit confusing. There are images in both of these species categories on commons. Some of the images on commons show the red on the front of its head much better than the images on the page. I am not exactly sure, but there may be images of two subspecies as well as the intermediate in the infobox. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1a - There appears to be an internal contradiction or it is due bad wording: "all of which have been described as distinct species in the past" (the section on Taxonomy and naming indicates four former species were recognised) differs from "Traditionally, two species were recognised in the genus Barnardius" (in the introduction). Snowman (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "Conservation status" section as suggested above. I feel the resulting section could be expanded - quantitative indication of population numbers, the extent and dates of the invasion of the Rainbow Lorikeets. Snowman (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd say that you wouldn't need many references in the description section - any good field book has a pretty full description of birds. I've added one of mine. It treats the Mallee Ringneck and the Port Lincoln Parrot as separate species within a "Ringneck complex", and treats the Conclurry Parrot and the Twenty Eight as subspecies of the Mallee and the PLP respectively. Otherwise, the descriptions are pretty on the mark. -Malkinann (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Can the field guide also be used for references for the ranges of the subspecies? Snowman (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does have map splodges for the Mallee Ringneck and the Cloncurry Parrot, but the Twenty-eight and PLP's ranges are conflated. I'm a bit iffy about my ability to adequately translate the splodges to a description of their actual ranges, though. The splodges were taken from the contemporary ROAU atlas. -Malkinann (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 3a - Aviculture is not mentioned. Snowman (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun a section on "In captivity", which seems to be the accepted name. I'd appreciate some help expanding and copyediting it. -Malkinann (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the reference in the "In captivity" section are from 1997, and so I think that the information sourced might be out-of-date. Snowman (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that - legislation rarely changes, and the bit about the bird being traded worldwide is also supported by the CITES bulletin of 2002. The bird being traded domestically is also suggested by the SA information from 2003. I can't find an update on the 1997 stuff, so I'm assuming it's still current. -Malkinann (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) Very clearly, images not required at GA. Will look at other details now. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 04:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind; this GAR should be closed. I'll let someone else do it 'cause I was involved in the past GAR and got a barnstar for it. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 04:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I merged stubby subsections. In addition I think 'Conservation status' and 'In captivity' should be merged as they are about the same topic: threats to this bird species. Please, pay attention to the refs: some of them are bare titles. The refs should have publisher, auther, dates and other relevant information. The tags should be also dealt with before I can say Keep. Ruslik (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This drawn out reassessment is a bit of a mess, as is the article. This is probably a case where delisting and renominating would be the best idea. Geometry guy 20:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe this should be closed as being "no consensus" - all comments on the state of the article (which have been mixed) are significantly outdated when compared to the current version of the article. -Malkinann (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly an option. If there is sufficient interest (Nikki has now also commented below) perhaps we could do a restart (close as "no consensus" and open a fresh reassessment). Geometry guy 19:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm late to this GAR, but I did notice something: "it has been placed in that genus by some authorities." - This is way too vague. Which authorities? Nikki311 19:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]