Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:56, 24 January 2013

Réunion Ibis

Réunion Ibis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Réunion Ibis/archive1

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have added practically all known info about, most PD images, and presented all controversies relating to the bird, and it has also been copyedited. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN5: publisher?
• FN9, 10: formatting
• Compare FNs 11 and 17. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think all these issues should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as per my good article review. A very strong article on a very interesting topic. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand why a Good Article review can be compatible with a Featured Article review, so I do not understand your rationale of referring back to your Good Article review. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my good article review, I felt the article was pretty much ready for FA status then. I find that the best good article reviews point towards FAC, and I try to do that in many of my own reviews; in this case, there was nothing else I could say. I read through the article again, and was happy that it was ready. I was also declaring a possible conflict of interest so that delegates could take that into account, if they felt it important. Do you now understand why I referred back to my good article review? (As an aside, why are you feeling the need to pester those who supported? It isn't like major issues have been dug up in subsequent reviews; a few small pointers have been brought up, along with some suggestions that aren't so great. Certainly nothing that suggests that the article is incomplete.) J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please withdraw the suggestion that I have pestered those supporting this article. Snowman (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop pestering me... J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Images are fine; all PD. A few are not Commons-safe, but they are uploaded locally and appropriately tagged. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I made a couple of minor edits, please check Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have noticed a tendency for you to support FA promotion early in the FA discussion of articles about birds; however, this is generally followed by lists of issues found by subsequent reviewers. Snowman (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, my thoughts about articles are rarely the same as those of other reviewers. I review with content, not style, in mind. As you can see below, interpretation is quite individual and subjective. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that reviewers bring a variety of skills and knowledge hence improvements to articles usually follow. Snowman (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by SandyGeorgia

Oppose for now, expect to strike, multiple

1. The Réunion Ibis (Threskiornis solitarius) is ... if the Threskiornis solitarius is an alternate name, it should be both bolded and italicized.

   This isn't done on other featured animal species articles, see for example California Condor, Lion, Bald Eagle, and Emperor Penguin. FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, I agree. AFAIK all the 100+ bird FAs and the thousands of bird species articles follow this practice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

   Alternate common names are emboldened in bird articles, but not binomial names. I understand that this style was thought to be the tidiest by consensus; although, all alternate names might logically be expected to be emboldened. Snowman (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, but then again, I don't see why this article should be the first to break the mold. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   Well, that's not right, but not worth dealing with if they've all been doing it wrong for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   I doubt you'll find any article about a taxon with a common name that doesn't do it this way. See the guideline here: Scientific names are only bolded if the animal does not have a common name, for whatever reason. See for example Deinosuchus. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

2. Images are facing off the page ... I believe the intent of the MOS guideline applies to both animals and people ... please juggle images so animals aren't looking off the page.

   I don't think that looks good, it creates clutter of images on the right side. Again, it is just a guideline for faces, not an FA criterion. Tons of other animal FAs have images that face away from the text. The problem would be the long synonym list, not the quotes. The guideline specifically says: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people need not be reversed simply to make the person's face point towards the text, and this should not be done if the reversal would materially mislead the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side)." FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   Restore bullet point AGAIN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   Well, sorry, but remember, no one is doing this to annoy you, I've just never dealt with this manner of responding before. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   Move it back if you wish; I'm not going to tangle over one image. But a) there is no such thing as "clutter of images on the right", and b) I suggest the clutter here is the excess number of quote boxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

   I added the MOS guideline above. As for quote boxes, I don't see what they have to do with anything? An image can be right aligned even if there's a box. The problem is that the taxobox has a long list of synonyms, which makes it intrude far down. I've fixed it by making the list collabsible and then right aligned the image in question.FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

3. In the mid 19th century, ... missing hyphen, pls review throughout.

   Fixed the single occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

4. An alternate name is mentioned in the second paragraph; is it not possible to get that mentioned sooner?

   Mentioned a bit sooner. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

5. The taxonomic history of the Réunion Ibis is very convoluted, ... is there a difference between "very convoluted" and "convoluted"? Please check for redundancy.

   Removed "very". FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

6. It has been claimed that Bertrand-François Mahé de La Bourdonnais sent a "Solitaire" to France ... weasly ... by whom?

   It is attributed to Billiard, 1822, but I'm not sure who it is. Added the name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Just random checks, I stopped there, the article is not in bad shape, but some additional prose review would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to propose more changes if necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've restored my bullet points (please look at my edit summaries to understand how to preserve numbering on response); I use bullet points so that you can enter one response, referencing numbers, to help avoid insanely long FACs (which seem to be the trend of late). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who removed the bullets, must be in the edit history somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You did: This is how you respond to bullet points: But you can shorten the FAC by adding a one-para response below, referencing my numbers. As in, 1, 3 and 5 fixed. Brief-- no need for FACs longer than articles because of threaded minutaie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, wasn't my intention then. But note that my FAC's only get longer than the articles themselves when Snowman drops by. He usually has a lot to say (and I personally have no problem with long FACs). See the Dodo and Mauritius Blue Pigeon discussions for comparison, where he did not chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Snowmanradio that this article is hard to follow, and suggest clarity can be added right here in the lead:

• In the late 20th century, the discovery of a subfossil species of ibis led to the idea that the accounts actually referred to this bird.

The accounts of the Reunion Solitaires? "This bird" equals the Reunion Ibis? Too much confusion about which bird is which, I think can be tightened in this one sentence in the lead. Clarify "the accounts" and clarify "this bird". "The accounts" refers apparently to the previous para. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. All your issues should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by Snowmanradio

I found this article somewhat difficult to read, so I suspect that the prose needs copy editing and perhaps the article needs reorganisation. Other issues: Snowman (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been copyedited already. Feel free to propose changes here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am anticipating that a number of reviewers will contribute to many improvements. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's hope so, but since you express you have something specific to mind, might as well brig it up. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I find the use of "Solitare" confusing, since the word solitaire can mean different things. Presumably the word should not be capitalised. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly when it is capitalised, it should be clearer that it is a name. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Réunion Solitaire or Rodrigues Solitaire? Snowman (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Rodrigues bird is referred to only by its full name, and only in the taxonomy section. I'm not sure who would be confused. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that understanding what is meant by Solitaire (with a capital S) added to my difficulty of reading the article. The heading is "Réunion Ibis" (the IOC and IUCN name) and I am not sure why it needs to be called a solitaire at any time except for saying that it is an alternative common name. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

When old accounts that use "Solitaire" are referred to, it would be too presumptuous to write "ibis" in the text. As stated below, the Ibis and Solitaire can never be shown to be the same entity without doubt. See how Birdlife International cautiously terms it: "If the Réunion 'solitaires' were indeed T. solitarius" and "It seems likely that the 'solitaire' known from numerous early accounts from Réunion(Cheke 1987) and Rodrigues, Mauritius, was in fact this ibis" FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• The term "Réunion Ibis Solitaire" appears once and I do not know what this is supposed to indicate. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, seems to have been added during copyediting. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the introduction; "Therefore, the Réunion Solitaire was classified as a member of the pigeon subfamily Raphinae, and even placed in the same genus as the Dodo by some authors." This is like saying "Therefore, the Earth was thought to be flat", without putting it in context. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The context is given prior to the sentence you quote. You took it out of its context yourself. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that this sentence should clearly say that it is an out-of-date point of view. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to tweak it. But it seems a bit redundant, since the sentence is preceded by "were incorrectly assumed to refer to white relatives of the Dodo" FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Dod-eersen" this appears in an old quote. I would not expect many readers to understand this unless they were interested in Dodos and old Dutch journals from ships. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hence the explanation prior to the quote. But I'll clarify it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It see the amendment, but is is clear? Snowman (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure how a new reader would see this, because I am aware that "Dod-eersen" can refer to a Dodo in old ship journals. However, I expect that this odd old Dutch word would add to the difficulty in reading the article for many. What about using an explanatory footnote? Snowman (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it some square brackets then, more likely to be viewed by a reader than a footnote. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• In bird articles the description section generally occurs earlier in the article than seen here, and it may help to follow suite in this article. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They don't, the taxonomy and evolution sections are always first, here they're just longer than average, since that's basically most there is to say about the bird. Can you show me any bird FAs where these sections aren't first? See also my examples above, which also have the same structure. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This article does not have an evolution section, but a re-organisation to include a section on evolution would probably be helpful. This article has a section headed "Modern identification", before the description heading. Snowman (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The identity issue is obviously part of the taxonomy. Could as well be called "modern taxonomic interpretation" or similar. I can rename it, or simply merge the sections, whatever you like. Moving it further down wouldn't make sense. We need an explanation and disclaimer before "merging" the entities in the lower sections. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be clearer to separate "historical confusion" from "modern nomenclature and taxonomy". Snowman (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps with taxonomy as heading, and two subheadings. I'll try something out. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that it would be worth putting the description section earlier, since the taxonomy section is rather long and complicated. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I think it is a bad idea. The description and behaviour sections are pretty much a scientific synthesis of facts about the fossil ibis and the old Solitaire accounts, a thorough explanation is needed before the reader gets to that section. And a brief description is also given in the taxonomy section, already. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Article inconsistency: The article says; "No specimens of the bird were ever collected." It then goes on to say that two were sent to France (but did not survive) and that Billiard claimed that Bertrand-François Mahé de La Bourdonnais sent another to France. Snowman (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They were sent, but died on the ship, and the remains weren't preserved. So perhaps it should be "no specimens were ever preserved". "Collected" was used in the source. As for the one bird, the article explains why this was most likely not a Réunion Solitaire. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that you can see the problem. Snowman (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: the African origin of this ibis. See the subsection "Madagascar: African affinities" in Cheke and Hume (2008). This could feature in a new subsection headed "Evolution". The Wiki article says a close relative is "... the Straw-necked Ibis (T. spinicollis) of Australia." However, Cheke and Hume distances the Reunion Ibis from the Australian ibis saying that they "relate best to African forms. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's enough for an entire section, but could be mentioned near the part about its closest relatives in the identity subsection. As for Hume's claim that's it's closer related to the African form, the actual describers of the bird makes no such claim, and Hume doesn't seem to go into detail about why. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Cheke and Hume paper says that the Reunion Ibis clearly has an African origin and is descended from Malagasy forms. Going on this, I think that the article might have the wrong emphasis in saying that its closest relatives are the African Ibis (from Africa) and the Straw-necked Ibis (from Australia). Some of the other Ibises of the same genus are also mainly black and white, so the article's emphasis of the black and white colour of those two ibises does not make sense to me. It is difficult to know what to do when different authorities have different opinions; however, there is no ambiguity in Cheke and Hume, who say "clearly has an African origin", so why ignore it. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, the actual describers, Mourer-Chauviré and Moutou did a cladistic analysis, where those two species were found to be about equally close to the Réunion bird. Ther Australian one is even closer in one feature: "In T. solitarius the minor and major metacarpals are fused over a longer distance, at both proximal and distal extremities, than in T. aethiopicus, but the same is true in T. spinicollis". I'm not sure what Cheke and Hume base their conclusions on, and they've already been proved wrong with their interpretation of Mascarinus as a psittaculine, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mourer-Chauviré and Moutou (1987) or Cheke and Hume (2008)? What is the preference for a 1987 paper over a 2008 paper? Snowman (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring to the 1999 paper. Morphological analysis is more reliable than guesswork and assumptions, I'd say. Only genetic testing can make sure, as the Mascarinus case clearly shows. Should be possible some day, and until then, the African hypothesis doesn't warrant more than the sentence I've given it. Especially since many Mascarene birds actually seem to have an Asian origin. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mascarene Parrot has an African origin closely related to the Lesser Vasa Parrot from Madagascar (2012 genetic study). Snowman (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Whereas Cheke and Hume proposed an Asian origin, only to be proven wrong a few years later. The Dodo and Rodrigues Solitaire, on the other hand, have been shown to be of Asian origin, through genetic analysis. The jury is still out on the Red Rail. In any case, the following should be enough: "The African Sacred Ibis also has similar coloured plumage to that described in the old descriptions of the Réunion Solitaire. It may be closer to that species, and therefore of African origin." FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

But the article indicates that "the Straw-necked Ibis (T. spinicollis) of Australia." is its second closest relative and the section that I have read in Cheke and Hume does not imply this. Cheke and Hume indicates that ibises on Reunion are "clearly related to African forms". The only relevant in-line reference is to Cheke and Hume. If you have used information from Mourer-Chauviré and Moutou (1999), then it should be included as an in-line reference here. Snowman (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I see, I moved the 1995 reference forward, which says the same. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest a spot check on randomly selected text for missing in-line references. Snowman (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see how the sentence implies more than the Cheke Hume source. It simply lists the two birds, without claiming anything in regard to closest relation. So it was fine even before. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say in Cheke and Hume specifically that the Straw-necked Ibis is so closely related? The statement in Cheke and Hume "clearly related to African forms" seems to contradict that the Straw-necked Ibis of Australia is very closely related. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

See the box on page 103. But that's irrelevant now, since the citation has been changed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This box is not used as an in-line reference. Has information for the article been sourced from this box? Snowman (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, I replaced the citation. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• This ibis is not a white dodo, so why are there so many images of a white Dodo in the article. Two of the images of a white Dodo look similar. I think that the images of the white Dodo are excessive. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The two 1600s paintings were directly responsible for the entire white Dodo myth, so I don't think so. The Frohawk image shows how embedded and accepted the idea was in 19th century literature, so it is important too. The latter is also so frequently republished that it is good to finally point out here that it is actually based on nothing, even I thought it depicted an actual specimen before I read up on the bird some years ago. I agree that such images should not be used outside the taxonomy sections, but they aren't anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There are four images showing a white Dodo, but the ibis is not a white Dodo. The captions do not explain the confusion over the white Dodo and I think the captions are not adequate. Why does the article need the image captioned; "Frohawk's 1907 adaptation of the Withoos Dodo"? Snowman (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the ibis is not a Dodo, but the Solitaire was thought to be. They were believed to be different entities until recently. We can never be sure if they represented the same bird. But I'll expand the captions. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not make another article for Reunion Solitaire (Raphus solitarius)? Snowman (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We can never be sure if the "Du" of New Caledonian legend actually is Sylviornis. But I doubt anyone would ever create a separate "Du" article, since the likelihood of them being the same is so large. Same in this case. Remember, there are several entities within the "Solitaire" complex that could warrant articles if we took it that far: The Ibis, the white Dodo, the white Rodrigues Solitaire, and the Réunion Solitaire itself. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Omission: dates of the images in captions. Snowman (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll give the estimated dates, the 1600s paintings have not been dated exactly. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

• In the introduction "... and the bird was first described in 1987." This sounds odd, because there are images of the bird dating back to about 1600 in the article. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Should be scientifically described. And in any case, no contemporary images of the actual Solitaire exist. The white Dodos are likely just albinistic Mauritius birds, as ther article states. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the introduction "raphine"; jargon. Snowman (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what members of raphinae are called. There is no other term. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

... that does not make it easy-to-underdstand jargon. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

When it is preceded by "the Réunion Solitaire was long believed to be a member of the pigeon subfamily Raphinae", what else could it possibly mean? I don't think we need to underestimate the intellect of the readers. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Raphinae" is also jargon. An intelligent person may wonder why the introduction is written by using two different words (which both turn out to indicate the same sub-family). It certainly would make it more difficult to read by some. We are looking for simplification in the introduction, so use anything possible to make it easier to read. Why not write it differently and only use one word for the subfamily. Make the introduction easy to read, clear, and unambiguous. Snowman (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at our featured dinosaur articles, which use similar terms. There is no common name for this family, unlike many other bird families. This article, and many others about extinct birds, have more in common with those covered by the palaeontology project. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The readability issue of having two different words of jargon in the introduction and both indicate the same sub-family is unresolved. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Raphidae is the subfamily. A "raphine" is a member of that subfamily. Just like a "tyrannosaurid" is a member of Tyrannosauridae. There is no issue to resolve, unless our goal is to dumb down the article. That's what simple Misplaced Pages is for. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the introduction "wiped-out"; probably unconventional language in science. Might be difficult to read by people who have a non-English first language. Snowman (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That is one of the weirdest arguments I've ever read in a FAC. This article is written for English speakers. This is the English Misplaced Pages. My first language isn't English, yet I don't have a problem understanding what I write here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

My only language is English and "wipe out" sounds odd to me as used in the introduction. Of course, I know what wipeout (wikilink to a dab page) means, however I think that "extinct" should be written in instead, because this would be more conventional and precise. Snowman (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I worded it a bit more eloquently. I think "wipe out" is crude, rather than hard to understand. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that I was entirely correct in pointing to this problem and suggesting a sensible improvement. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the cause, I think the present wording is indeed better. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wiped out occurs in "had wiped out the wildlife in the lowlands". I think that you should have realised that this phase appears in the article more than once. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? You only brought up the intro. The same term is used in the source, so I don't see why it should be replaced throughout. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that an alternative word would be better than wiped out. Did cats wipe out all wildlife in the lowlands? Did they wipe out all animals, birds, fish and reptiles in the lowlands? An added complexity is the wildlife can also mean vegetation. Snowman (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The source says both "wildlife" and "wipe out". I don't think it's up to us to reinterpret the sources and give info a potentially different meaning. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Or rather something you don't personally like, which has no relevance to actual FAC criteria. This is getting silly, could we please stick to constructive criticism that is based on actual FAC criteria so this page doesn't get longer than the last one? FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are on thin ice here. How can feral cats wipe out wildlife in the lowlands? Surely, they must have left some forms of wildlife to exist there. Snowman (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ask Cheke and Hume. Anywhow, just to get the ball rolling, I've written "decimated the wildlife" instead, also sounds fancier. FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the introduction "... merely showed an aberrant Mauritius Dodo." This can not be left like this in the introduction, since readers who only read the introduction are likely to get the wrong impression and have no idea that the white Dodo could be a normal juvenile Dodo (or a normal female). Snowman (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It has never been suggested it was white because it was a female. And aberrant merely means different from the norm, which is of course a grey Dodo. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have seen discussion about the white Dodo including that it could be a normal juvenile. I recall that the discussion also included that it could be a normal female. I think that the introduction gives the wrong impression and needs amending. In many bird species young juvenile birds are a different colour to the adult bird and this does not make the young bird aberrant. See the section on the White Dodo in the Dodo article, which mentions the possibility of a white Dodo being a female or a juvenile. Snowman (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it. As for the Dodo article, since I wrote it in the first place, I know that you've misinterpreted it. The sex dimorphism theory was to explain why the images showed yellow wings instead of black as in the accounts, it has nothing to do with the white colour. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A white Dodo might be a normal juvenile Dodo. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It might, but note also that the Dodo in this painting has been speculated to be juvenile, and it isn't particularly white. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Both images could be correct depending on what age they change colour. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, either is really irrelevant now, since the wording has already been changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have listed a sample of problems in the introduction above. It may be necessary for the introduction to have a complete re-write. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Only if you point out exactly what needs to be rewritten. Not all these suggestions are particularly usable. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

My point that I am making is that I have found a number of factors in the introduction that make it difficult to read and perhaps some parts could be misleading. I have listed a few problems from the introduction to point authors of the article in what I think is the right direction. Snowman (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Replacing a few words hardly counts as a "complete rewrite". FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A few things in the introduction have been improved. However, I think that the introduction continues to have readability issues. I think it may be best for new reviewers to have a look. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the issues are so obvious and striking, they shouldn't be too hard to point out, no? FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I have helped to unscramble some of the factual content of the introduction. Some people are really good and quick at copy-editing and I would rather hand over to a copy-editor to handle the complexities of the English language relevant to the introduction at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. But note that it has already been copyedited, and that no one else seem to be this confused by the intro so far. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia has commented on the introduction (or lead); see this edit. Snowman (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

All her suggestions were subsequently fixed, so that is hardly relevant now. But anyhow, let's wait and see, if you don't have more suggestions yourself. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you noticed that she is currently opposing FA status? Snowman (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

She hasn't responded since I fixed the issues, so I'm not sure why it should come as a surprise. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh, what is unresolved? You have not proposed any changes in this section. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have listed above a sample of issues in the introduction and I am anticipating that editors will be proactive and fix other problems like it in the introduction. I also think that the introduction is too long (see below) mainly because of too much detail on old taxonomy and old nomenclature. Snowman (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem is, the bulk of literature about this bird is about old taxonomy and interpretations, since there is practically nothing else known about the bird. You can't expect this article to have a different focus than all actual published literature about the subject, that is pretty absurd. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, since the intro is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, the space given to taxonomic history is appropriate, since more than half of the article itself is about this. FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Introduction length: My impression is that there is too much detail in the introduction particularly on old taxonomy and nomenclature, so I decided to look at WP:LEADLENGTH. It suggests that an article of 15,000–30,000 characters should aim to have two or three paragraphs in the introduction. Currently article readable prose size (text only) is 16 kB (2725 words) and the introduction has four paragraphs. Snowman (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, the taxonomic history is very important in this case. Unless someone else chimes in and complains about it, I think it's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You haven't suggested anything that is actually in the FA criteria. The intro to article ratio is just a guideline, not a criterion. Likewise, the detail issue is subjective. Drastic changes that are not obvious improvements, like many of those you propose, should at least have more support from other reviewers before I'll consider them. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

After actually looking at the guideline, there is only a suggestion of how long the intro should be in relation to the article, not how short. So your demand is misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that the suggested introduction are guidelines, but I suspected that there was too much difficult-to-read detail in the introduction before I reminded myself of the length guidelines. I recall some FA discussions that were the catalyst for editors to go to a lot of trouble to get the introduction to an appropriate size. Snowman (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

But what you propose has nothing to do with the actual guideline. The guideline doesn't indicate the intro should be shorter. It is about the minimum length of intros in relation to text, not maximum. FunkMonk (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article". See WP:LEADLENGTH. Snowman (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Immediately followed by "As a general guideline—not an absolute rule", while linking to "Ignore all rules". You're a bit selective with your quotes there. It is by no means a FAC criterion, that should be pretty clear, and has no bearing on whether this article should pass or fail. FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)