Talk:Rodrigues night heron/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 13:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig shows no issues except for a couple of very short phrases that would be hard to rephrase. Sources are reliable.

  • Not relevant for GA, but since I know you take many of your articles to FAC I'll mention that FN 3 is missing a publisher location which is inconsistent with the other uses of cite book.
    Feel free to add any other FAC-relevant issues, because yes, I'll take this to FAC later. But are we looking at the same ref, since Croydon is listed for ref 3 as far as I can see? FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I meant FN 4 -- Poyser. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two related species": Suggest making this "Two related extinct species" in the lead.
    Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you say "its appearance in life is unknown", but the restoration perforce has feathers, for which the appearance is presumably a guess based on related species. I think the caption should make clear what the basis is for the colouration of the restoration.
    This is explained in the Commons description of the image with a citation, but I added the following to the caption: "based on contemporary accounts, remains, and related species". As described in the article, there has been some inference that it and its relatives might have been similar to bitterns and juvenile night herons in colouration, which both have a spotted, buffish appearance. Also, this is how Julian P. Hume has restored them in the past. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but would it then be better to make it "appearance is uncertain" or "known only from brief contemporary descriptions" or something similarly weaker in the lead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Went with "uncertain", while what we "know" is mainly just inference. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Examination of the known remains have confirmed its terrestrial adaptations": either "Examinations" or "has confirmed".
    Went with "examinations". FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1873, the French zoologist Alphonse Milne-Edwards described subfossil bones from Rodrigues he had received by the British ornithologist Alfred Newton": if I understand the intended meaning, I would make this "via" (or perhaps "from") rather than "by".
    Went with "via". FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not one who requires inline explanations for every specialist term, but it seems odd that you gloss almost every bone name except "coracoids", which is a much less familiar word than "femur".
    Explained. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but found that they were rather consistent with belonging to a species of heron": should this be "more consistent"? Or is the intended meaning "instead"?
    "Instead", added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1879, more fossils of this species were described by the German zoologist Albert Günther and E. Newton, including bones not known by the time of Milne-Edwards's original description, such as the two last cervical vertebrae (of the neck), fifth dorsal vertebra (of the back), pelvis, scapula (shoulder blade), ulna (lower arm bone), radius (lower arm bone), second phalanx of the inner toe, and first of the hind toe." I don't think "such as" works well; we're not comparing the bones used to other similar bones -- we're listing examples of the actual bones examined. However, you can't say "including" because that's already been used earlier in the sentence. That use of "including" isn't quite right either, though; they didn't describe the species including the bones, they described it, taking into account these additional bones. How about "In 1879, more fossils of this species were described by the German zoologist Albert Günther and E. Newton, with the benefit of bones not known by the time of Milne-Edwards's original description, including the two last cervical vertebrae (of the neck), fifth dorsal vertebra (of the back), pelvis, scapula (shoulder blade), ulna (lower arm bone), radius (lower arm bone), second phalanx of the inner toe, and first of the hind toe."?
    That looks good, took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An associated but incomplete specimen preserving the skull and jaws": what does "associated" mean here?
    This is in contrast to scattered bones, and usually means the bones of a single individual were found in close proximity to each other, but the sources don't make it clear, so it's hard to rephrase. But looking at the source again, I added a point that doesn't seem to have been explicitly made elsewhere, "Hume stated in 2006 that while the Rodrigues night heron was still capable of flight, it was on the way to flightlessness". FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about linking the word to
    Archaeological association? There's no article yet, but the redirect does take the reader to a glossary that explains the term. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Archaeology is a strictly human-related field, though, and we don't seem to have a palaeontological equivalent, but there is the
    dinogloss which has an entry that covers it at "associated", added that for now, as birds are technically dinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "that it would only have been possible if from sloping ground": I don't think you need the "if".
    Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had unknowingly used the bones of the large South American subspecies of the black-crowned night heron (N. n. obscurus) for comparison, instead of the European subspecies (N. n. nycticorax) as they believed": I don't know what "as they believed" is telling me. Does this mean that Günther and Newton had believed they were using N. n. nycticorax? If so how about reversing it: "pointed out that while Günther and Newton had thought they were using the bones of the European subspecies (N. n. nycticorax), they had actually used the bones of the large South American subspecies of the black-crowned night heron (N. n. obscurus) for comparison."?
    Yes, that's exactly the intention, reversed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which can also be seen in other species endemic to oceanic islands": suggest "an adaptation which can also be seen in other species endemic to oceanic islands".
    Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though they were still able to fly when required": suggest cutting "they were".
    Cut. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from a read through. Will do spot-checks next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

  • FN 4 cites "In 2007, Cheke and Hume called the night herons of Rodrigues and Mauritius "behaviourally flightless", though they were still able to fly when required." I don't have access to this; can you quote the supporting text, or email me the source if that's easier?
    Here's the text, I can of course also send you the source if required: "The endemics were all night herons of the genus Nycticorax. Although they could still fly when hard pressed, the Mauritian and Rodrigues birds had become ‘behaviorally’ flightless, with correspondingly reduced wing elements." FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 12 cites "He also coined the common name "Rodriguez flightless heron", due to his conviction that it had lost the ability to fly." I think this is OK -- I see he makes the argument that they're flightless, and that he says "Rodrigues flightless heron", but as far as I can see he doesn't explicitly say this is a newly coined common name. However, since the argument (that it was flightless) he is making is clearly new to the discussion of the species, I think this is good enough.
    I changed to "used" instead of "coined", but no one has ever used the term before or since. The capitalisation he used also shows it was intended as a common name, and not just a description. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review, everything should now be answered, Mike Christie. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answered the hanging points, Mike Christie. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rodrigues_night_heron/GA1&oldid=1164749859"