Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seychelles parakeet/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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 28 January 2022 [1].
Seychelles parakeet
This article is about an obscure, extinct parakeet, which I happened to have a lot of sources about, so finally thought it should get the treatment. There is also a little bit of nice art history in the mix. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Image review—pass, no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm seeing a big gap to the left of the image captioned "Two male Alexandrine parakeets..." and above the table. IIRC there was a similar issue at a prior FAC and it was fixed by editing the syntax so the descent table could split if there was not space for both schemas. (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I usually don't see those on my screen. Pinging Jts1882, who might be able to fix it. I think it has something to do with the space between the two cladograms, which should somehow be narrower. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I decreased the space, but can't say if it solved the problem on your screen yet. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looks fine now. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I assume the space is due to a narrow screen. I can still get it if I reduce the screen window so that the image is wider than 40% (the div containing the cladograms is now width:60%). One option is to change the container for the two cladograms so that they appear vertically on narrow screens. — Jts1882 | talk 08:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looks fine now. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I decreased the space, but can't say if it solved the problem on your screen yet. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I usually don't see those on my screen. Pinging Jts1882, who might be able to fix it. I think it has something to do with the space between the two cladograms, which should somehow be narrower. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
AryKun
Placeholder, will review soon. AryKun (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Some very minor stuff that was easier to do myself. Overall nice work here, mostly very minor comments.
- In the first sentence, should it be Seychelles islands parakeet? Also, maybe capitalized "islands"?
- rare by 1867, → comma unnecessary
- 1937 checklist of birds → 1937 Check-list of Birds of the World
- Does Indian Ocean really need a link?
- Is the link to stepping stones relevant?
- Linked to Oceanic dispersal instead. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- species to group within → species to form a group within
- Could the gloss for paraphyletic be improved (perhaps something like "grouping that excludes some of its subgroups")
- The "[male]" should be after "one of them" instead of where it currently is.
- doomed to extinction, by being → comma unnecessary
Support from Gog the Mild
More dead parrots! I'll have a look. Ping me if I don't get started over the next couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- "41 cm (16.1 in)". Spurious accuracy. Maybe "|sigfig=2"?
- "of which only the granitic mountain tops remain above sea level". Perhaps 'of which he believed/claimed/whatever only the granitic mountain tops remain above sea level', as it ain't the case.
- I'm not sure I follow, it's not considered controversial. I've added links to Granitic Seychelles and Seychelles Microcontinent for further details. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- OK. It reads as if the whole of Gondwanaland has sunk: "the ancient landmass Gondwanaland, of which only the granitic mountain tops remain above sea level". Perhaps a tweak.
- The source isn't much more specific, but tried with "of which only their granitic mountain tops remain above sea level", to make it clearer we're referring to the islands, not the ancient landmass. This is how the source puts it: "The granitic Seychelles are an ancient part of the Gondwanaland continental landmass of which only the mountain tops now remain above sea level (Plummer & Belle 1995)." FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- OK. It reads as if the whole of Gondwanaland has sunk: "the ancient landmass Gondwanaland, of which only the granitic mountain tops remain above sea level". Perhaps a tweak.
- I'm not sure I follow, it's not considered controversial. I've added links to Granitic Seychelles and Seychelles Microcontinent for further details. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- "because they did not continue further west." Should "west" be 'east'?
- "colonised Asia and Africa via these islands rather than vice versa". I don't follow. What is the vice versa?
- The alternative is that they came to the islands from Asia and Africa. So the study suggests the ancestors of these birds evolved on the islands and then spread from there to the continents. It's an odd idea that doesn't seem to have been supported by later (or earlier) articles, though. I tweaked it a bit, not sure if it's enough. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Whew. OK. That sounds kinda wacky. Possible I suppose, but still. I think it needs explaining a bit more clearly - maybe something like 'This indicated to them that Indian Ocean islands have been key stepping stones for evolutionary radiation of these species. This suggests that the ancestors of the Seychelles parakeet and other species may have evolved on the islands and colonised Asia and Africa rather than vice versa.'?
- The article doesn't say it explicitly, it says "With a number of island-endemic Psittacula taxa inferred as early divergences within their clades, the islands of the Indian Ocean appear to have been key stepping stones in the adaptive radiation of this genus. The extinct P. wardi, which was endemic to the Seychelles, is the first divergence in the P. eupatria species group (all of which occur in continental Asia), and P. echo, endemic to the island of Mauritius, is deep within the P. krameri clade (species of which occur in Africa and Continental Asia), suggesting that Psittacula parrots may have colonised Asia and Africa via the islands of the Indian Ocean rather than vice versa. Analyses of other vertebrate groups in the region have also indicated that Indian Ocean islands have been critical in ‘seeding’ continents (Warren et al., 2010)." So I'm a bit wary of being more specific than the source, though it certainly seems to be what it implies. Since these authors also mention a related group of parrots from Australasia are closely related, it appears they don't rule out they could have come from there, though they don't state so explicitly at all. It's all a bit ambiguous, so I added "They suggested" to make it clearer it's a claim... FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ho hum. I take your point. Ok, it needs mentioning and what you have is probably least bad. In passing, some of that paraphrasing looks a little close.
- The article doesn't say it explicitly, it says "With a number of island-endemic Psittacula taxa inferred as early divergences within their clades, the islands of the Indian Ocean appear to have been key stepping stones in the adaptive radiation of this genus. The extinct P. wardi, which was endemic to the Seychelles, is the first divergence in the P. eupatria species group (all of which occur in continental Asia), and P. echo, endemic to the island of Mauritius, is deep within the P. krameri clade (species of which occur in Africa and Continental Asia), suggesting that Psittacula parrots may have colonised Asia and Africa via the islands of the Indian Ocean rather than vice versa. Analyses of other vertebrate groups in the region have also indicated that Indian Ocean islands have been critical in ‘seeding’ continents (Warren et al., 2010)." So I'm a bit wary of being more specific than the source, though it certainly seems to be what it implies. Since these authors also mention a related group of parrots from Australasia are closely related, it appears they don't rule out they could have come from there, though they don't state so explicitly at all. It's all a bit ambiguous, so I added "They suggested" to make it clearer it's a claim... FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Whew. OK. That sounds kinda wacky. Possible I suppose, but still. I think it needs explaining a bit more clearly - maybe something like 'This indicated to them that Indian Ocean islands have been key stepping stones for evolutionary radiation of these species. This suggests that the ancestors of the Seychelles parakeet and other species may have evolved on the islands and colonised Asia and Africa rather than vice versa.'?
- The alternative is that they came to the islands from Asia and Africa. So the study suggests the ancestors of these birds evolved on the islands and then spread from there to the continents. It's an odd idea that doesn't seem to have been supported by later (or earlier) articles, though. I tweaked it a bit, not sure if it's enough. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- "which had previously only been mentioned in writing". But you include a 1907 illustration yourself! If you mean the specific image, then maybe tweak the image. Someone must have seen it, if only to mention it in writing. OK, you repeat this later in the paragraph; I suggest deleting the first mention.
- This refers specifically to North's painting, which I think the full sentence makes clear: "and published an 1883 painting of the Seychelles parakeet for the first time, which had previously only been mentioned in writing". It's the painting, not the bird, that is referred to. I've added "by North" after "painting" to make it clearer. The 1907 image is unrelated to that point, and is actually just based on the image in the taxobox that was drawn after dead birds. The article body also says "Newton and his brother, British ornithologist Alfred Newton, published an illustration depicting both sexes in 1876 by the Dutch artist John Gerrard Keulemans, based on subsequently received specimens." The caption to the North painting already says it's the only depiction from life, so should be a given the others are not. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- How would you feel about something along the lines of "which had previously only been mentioned in writing" → '; the image had only previously been known from North's written account.'?
- The painting had also been mentioned by others than North, though, reproductions of it were just never published. I tried with "which had previously only been mentioned in writing by North and others", if that's any good. I've also added this sentence for clarity: "Keulemans' illustration of the species for the British zoologist Walter Rothschild's 1907 book Extinct Birds was based on his earlier illustration." FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)]
- I like that. Re North, how would you feel about 'he located and published for the first time an 1883 painting by North of the Seychelles parakeet
for the first time, which had previously only been mentioned in writingby North and others.'?
- I like that. Re North, how would you feel about 'he located and published for the first time an 1883 painting by North of the Seychelles parakeet
- The painting had also been mentioned by others than North, though, reproductions of it were just never published. I tried with "which had previously only been mentioned in writing by North and others", if that's any good. I've also added this sentence for clarity: "Keulemans' illustration of the species for the British zoologist
- How would you feel about something along the lines of "which had previously only been mentioned in writing" → '; the image had only previously been known from North's written account.'?
- This refers specifically to North's painting, which I think the full sentence makes clear: "and published an 1883 painting of the Seychelles parakeet for the first time, which had previously only been mentioned in writing". It's the painting, not the bird, that is referred to. I've added "by North" after "painting" to make it clearer. The 1907 image is unrelated to that point, and is actually just based on the image in the taxobox that was drawn after dead birds. The article body also says "Newton and his brother, British ornithologist Alfred Newton, published an illustration depicting both sexes in 1876 by the Dutch artist John Gerrard Keulemans, based on subsequently received specimens." The caption to the North painting already says it's the only depiction from life, so should be a given the others are not. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- "make daily flights" → 'making daily flights'.
- Lead: "The last confirmed individual was shot in 1893, and no birds could be found by 1906." Article: "In 1907, the British zoologist Walter Rothschild said the bird was confined to the islet of Silhouette, where it would probably become extinct."
- Hume's 2017 statement that they probably did not survive past 1906 is more well-founded than Rothschild's 1907 claim (he is notorious for hearsay, but was influential). The IUCN (the ultimate authority on these matters) says "The last known individuals were shot in 1893, and none were found on a survey in 1906", in accordance with Hume FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can work that out. But if Rothchild's claim is unreliable A. Why is it in the article at all? B. Why isn't it clearly labelled as unreliable?
- Well, there's a few aspects to this, first, most historical ideas like this tend to be considered inaccurate later on, but they should be kept for historical context, as long as newer sources that give the current views are included. Rothschild was highly influential at the time, and he can't really be ignored, and we wouldn't for example exclude the historical claim that the Earth was flat from the Earth article just because the idea is outdated. Also, as the article explains, he wasn't the only early 20th century writer who speculated the birds may have survived later, but these claims are trumped by the newer sources (Greenway, Hume) cited at the end of the article, and the fact that no birds were observed by 1906. While some sources have questioned Rothschild's reliability when it came to other of his ideas, none comment on this particular statement. Also, hindsight is always easier, Rothschild lived when the bird still existed, so it wouldn't be too far fetched for him to think it survived; his book is from 1907, it was only the year before that no birds were reported, and his book had possibly been in the works for a considerable time by then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- OK, then maybe end the sentence with something like ', although this is no longer believed to be the case'?
- Hmmm, I think the section already does this by ending on "Hume considered the species highly unlikely to have survived past 1906"? Since the section is written with the claims coming chronologically, it seems a bit like retroactive editorialising to add it earlier. We also have "Peters speculated in 1937 that they still survived on Silhouette" even later on, so it would be odd to single out Rothschild. In any case, no one knows exactly when it went extinct, but I've added the following, which is a bit of a middle ground view that I overlooked: "Forshaw stated in 2017 that the species probably disappeared some time after the last specimen was collected in 1893 and Nicoll's 1906 visit when no birds were reported." FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's it! Good.
- Hmmm, I think the section already does this by ending on "Hume considered the species highly unlikely to have survived past 1906"? Since the section is written with the claims coming chronologically, it seems a bit like retroactive editorialising to add it earlier. We also have "Peters speculated in 1937 that they still survived on Silhouette" even later on, so it would be odd to single out Rothschild. In any case, no one knows exactly when it went extinct, but I've added the following, which is a bit of a middle ground view that I overlooked: "Forshaw stated in 2017 that the species probably disappeared some time after the last specimen was collected in 1893 and Nicoll's 1906 visit when no birds were reported." FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- OK, then maybe end the sentence with something like ', although this is no longer believed to be the case'?
- Well, there's a few aspects to this, first, most historical ideas like this tend to be considered inaccurate later on, but they should be kept for historical context, as long as newer sources that give the current views are included. Rothschild was highly influential at the time, and he can't really be ignored, and we wouldn't for example exclude the historical claim that the Earth was flat from the Earth article just because the idea is outdated. Also, as the article explains, he wasn't the only early 20th century writer who speculated the birds may have survived later, but these claims are trumped by the newer sources (Greenway, Hume) cited at the end of the article, and the fact that no birds were observed by 1906. While some sources have questioned Rothschild's reliability when it came to other of his ideas, none comment on this particular statement. Also, hindsight is always easier, Rothschild lived when the bird still existed, so it wouldn't be too far fetched for him to think it survived; his book is from 1907, it was only the year before that no birds were reported, and his book had possibly been in the works for a considerable time by then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can work that out. But if Rothchild's claim is unreliable A. Why is it in the article at all? B. Why isn't it clearly labelled as unreliable?
- Hume's 2017 statement that they probably did not survive past 1906 is more well-founded than Rothschild's 1907 claim (he is notorious for hearsay, but was influential). The IUCN (the ultimate authority on these matters) says "The last known individuals were shot in 1893, and none were found on a survey in 1906", in accordance with Hume FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
That is all I could find. Excellently written. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Source review from Ealdgyth
- What makes the following "high quality reliable sources":
- I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
HF - support
Looks interesting- will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Psittacula eupatria wardi (Newton, 1867)" - I may well be misunderstanding how scientific synonyms and attribution work, but the article indicates that someone other than Newton referred to it as this?
- "The British ornithologist Michael John Nicoll did not see them when he visited in 1906" - is this just Mahe or all of the relevant islands?
- Looks like he only visited Mahé and Praslin[3], but the secondary sources don't specify. But it's kind of hard to cite his books directly for an omission, which would be a bit WP:synthy... Personally, I think it's a bit of a weak rationale to base its extinction on him just not mentioning it, who knows if he even looked for it, but multiple secondary sources use this reasoning. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)]
- Looks like he only visited Mahé and Praslin[3], but the secondary sources don't specify. But it's kind of hard to cite his books directly for an omission, which would be a bit
- Sources look fine, so far as I can tell
- Image licensing is fine
Couldn't find much to pick on here, excellent work. Hog Farm Talk 03:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Wehwalt
Support Very interesting. Just a couple of things:
- "much of the bird fauna is little differentiated from that of the mainland at the genus level" What mainland is being referred to?
- Presumable Africa and Asia, the Hume source only says "much of the Seychelles avifauna is little differentiated from the mainland at the generic level (Prys-Jones & Diamond 1984), and can be considered comparatively recent." I skimmed the citation he mentions, but it doesn't seem to clarify it either. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Forshaw stated in 2017 that the species probably disappeared some time after the last specimen was collected in 1893 and Nicoll's 1906 visit when no birds were reported.[6]" In other words, some time after 1906? It could be clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Forshaw is as ambiguous "Seychelles Parakeets disappeared sometime after 1893, when the last specimen was collected on Mahé, and 1906, when M. J. Nicoll visited the islands and subsequently made no mention of seeing them in his account of the visit (in Greenway 1967)." I guess it can be interpreted as if it could either have gone extinct between 1893 and 1906, or some time after 1906. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Closing note: This WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.