Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:25, 1 February 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)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Snowman (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh! Why so serious? FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 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)

Perhaps you should also consider whether you yourself make FA reviews more nitpicky and tedious than necessary. You frequently confuse guidelines with policy, as well as elevating your own (often eccentric) personal preferences to FA criteria. You also make blanket announcements of wanting "large changes", without actually specifying what it is you dislike. That is useless handwaving. And even when one of your subjective, non-FAC criterion suggestions are rejected, you stubbornly refuse to let them go. Sometimes it appears like you haven't even read the articles to begin with, since what you ask for is often already present, or is a complete misinterpretation. I say this from experience. Compare the length and tediousness of these two FACs where you contributed: With these where you didn't: FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to their own views and opinions. I have started discussions on the talk pages of Talk:Rodrigues Solitaire and Talk:Dodo about problems with verification that I think should have been fixed during FA discussions. Snowman (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it is always good to take evaluation of one's behaviour into account, especially when the same issues are noticed by many different people over and over again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 24 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)

   We had a discussion on this very point some time ago (link) and the consensus was to leave the scientific name unbolded in parentheses. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

   Thank you, Cas! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 29 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)

   The point about "clutter" was that images weren't cluttering, but excess quotes might be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 29 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)

Are there any ready-made statistics on FAC lengths? Snowman (talk) 14:03, 26 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)

Thank you, I've struck my oppose as I've not got time for further review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. FunkMonk (talk) 07:18, 29 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)

Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Or rather, rejected. You have not responded to my arguments above. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It is Sand Martin and House Martin. The House Martin is a martin that makes mud nests. Martin is a lower case here. It is Reuniun Solitaire, but why should "Solitaire" be capitalised? Snowman (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Solitaire" was the common name for this species at the time, I don't see what it has to do with "martin", which refers to a type of bird today, and such names are not capitalised. A "solitaire" is not a type of bird. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Check and Hume 2004 (one of the main sources) use "solitaire" 46 times in their article. It is all lower case 44 times, all upper case once in a heading, and it is capitalised only once where it is in a quote from 1897. Snowman (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, good precedent. Does this include the full common name "Réunion Solitaire" as well, or is that name even used by them? FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Common names of birds are usually capitalised. Why is solitaire in inverted commas in "connected to the "solitaire" accounts."? The infobox seems inconsistent, because it is headed Reunion Ibis and the image is captioned Reunion Solitaire. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed the quote marks. Schlegel did not know of any ibis when he drew the image based on accounts (he placed it in the genus Didus in the same article), so retroactively labelling it a such is not needed. See also the caption at King Island Emu. The original terminology is of historical importance. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 28 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)

Perhaps, the redundancy of repeating a description in the taxonomy can be avoided by putting the description section higher up the page. This issue may not affect FA status. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The first description featured is in an old quote, so the redundancy is not in the text itself. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 24 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)

I fixed it myself by saying "this subfamily" instead of "raphine". Snowman (talk) 20:29, 24 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)

I think that you see the problem. Personally speaking, I think that "decimated" is not the right word here. Decimate has more than one meaning. It could mean reduce by a tenth (as also used in Roman times) or severely reduce. Snowman (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's more that, at this point, I just want to get on with it. So what do you suggest? FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed it myself using "last stronghold" and "feral cats hunted wildlife". I note that User FunkMonk made an improvement based on my version. Snowman (talk) 20:57, 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)

There is no perfect introduction, but a suspect few more improvements can be made and I hope more reviewers have a look. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 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)

As far as I can see, the introduction is quite a bit longer than the guidelines suggest, so this is a relevant talking point here. Snowman (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• The important thing about the lead is that it summarises, in the correct proportion, the key points of the article. Its precise length or paragraph count is secondary to this. It is far better for a lead to be slightly too long than, as in most cases, far too short. In a perfect world the two paragraphs which deal with taxonomy would be merged and slightly shortened while the end of the last paragraph would be split to a new, slightly extended one on ecology, habitat and extinction, but this is a matter of slight sentence-shuffling: FA-class is not reserved for perfect articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

^See, that is a constructive suggestion, with tangible pointers instead of hand-waving. I'll see what I can do. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now reworked the intro, following the specific and helpful suggestions made by Thumperward. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am grateful for User Thumperward's suggestions, which are very likely to be useful for fixing readability issues that I have raised. I think User Thumperward's has expressed his insight eloquently. Snowman (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The reason why it was impossible to implement it when you suggested it was that you mixed up two unrelated issues, length and content, without actually pointing out anything specific in the text. Please be a bit more concise with your suggestions henceforward. That is the "blanket statement" problem I mentioned above, which you need to take seriously if your reviews are to be of any use. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I note your request to be spoon fed. Nevertheless, I think that general comments can be received well by pro-active Wikipedians with an open mind. I make general comments and specific comments. I have a background is science, and I prefer to leave systematic copy editing of the English language and most MoS issues to editors who specialise in these areas. 19:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That statement is a bit incongruent with this edit. Expressing oneself concisely has nothing to do with "spoon-feeding". That is quite an important quality to have on a text based project like this. Again, handwaving is nothing but a waste of time. I won't make drastic changes to an article if your only argument is "I don't like the intro because I don't get it", without any specific suggestions. The problem is that you don't take rejection calmly, but stubbornly attach yourself to every minor suggestion you make, as if it was core Misplaced Pages policy. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to there own views and opinions. Snowman (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but if a change you suggest isn't an obvious improvement, but even a degradation, you have to accept if it isn't implemented, and not just label the issue as "unresolved". It is not "unresolved", it is rejected as not being an improvement, and as being irrelevant to FA criteria and Misplaced Pages policies. And then we can move on to the next issue, instead of argung in circles for a month every damn time. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no perfect introduction. After recent changes, I think that the introduction may be approaching FA standard, and I hope that more reviewers have a look at it. There seems to be repetition with both "reduced flight capabilities" and "It had difficulty flying" in the introduction, and this seems to be an example of an obvious remaining problem. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It is intentional. First instance refers to the old accounts, the second refers to the fossils. I'll clarify it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been thinking about the length of the introduction, which now consists of four paragraphs including a double-sized second paragraph. The suggested length is two or three paragraphs for an article the size of this one. I think that the introduction needs to be simplified and shortened. I am aware that my suggestion is does not offer any specific copy-editing suggestions and that Wiki guidelines on introduction length are not strict rules, so I would welcome opinions on the length and complexity of the introduction. If there is a consensus, then editors might like to focus on more specific ways to make it easier to read and perhaps shorter. Snowman (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As Thumperward noted above, the issue of length isn't really an FA criterion. So I don't see what would objectively be gained, other than your personal approval. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This introduction = 402 words. Free prose in entire article = 2743 words. About 14.7% of the free prose is the introduction in this article. I think that the length of the introduction is a relevant criteria to discuss in here. I note that the length of introductions is also discussed in Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Augustinian theodicy/archive1 and Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Aaliyah (album)/archive1. These were the first two examples that I found of long introductions that had been discussed in FA discussions and I expect that there are probably more. Snowman (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Then we need to know how long those intros were before we can compare. In any case, it is not an FA criterion, and we have already discussed the issue at length, and reached a compromise. At this point, it's just useless ant fucking. Pardon my French. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• "seasonal fat-cycles"; jargon in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Then rephrase it if you don't like it, don't just remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that your reply could be written differently. It is jargon and I do not know what it means. Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the article? "As contemporary accounts are inconsistent on whether the Solitaire was flightless or had some flight capability, Mourer-Chauvire suggested that this was dependent on fat-cycles; it was described as being "fat", so perhaps it could not fly when it was so, but could when it was thin." FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This sounds really unusual to me. Are there any other wild birds that can not fly when they are fat and can fly when they are thin? The article says "Mourer-Chauvire suggested that this was dependent on fat-cycles", which has turned into "seasonal fat-cycles" in the introduction. There is therefore information in the introduction regarding the nature of fat-cycles (whatever they are), which is not in the text of the article. Snowman (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Seasonal fat cycles is apparently a feature of many Mascarene birds. I think Cheke and Hume go into more detail on this. I'll add "seasonal" to the main text then. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole sentence is now"; Subfossil wing-bones indicate it had reduced flight capabilities, a feature perhaps linked to seasonal fat-cycles." I think that this sentence will tend to mystify readers. Surely, the most important factor linked to reduced flight capabilities is the absence of predators on the island and hence a reduced evolutionary drive to preserve flight. Snowman (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, intros are not supposed to go into detail, they're mere summaries. If people are mystified, they can just read the article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "walghvogel"; unexplained old Dutch. Snowman (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is old Dutch needed here? Snowman (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

For colour. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am mystified. Vogel means bird, but two on-line translators did not translate "walgh" or "walghvogel". Snowman (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Then what? Do I need to explain the numerous etymologies for "dod-eers" too? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• "As Réunion was populated, ..."; populated with what? Snowman (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Settlers, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omissions: other commons names, Réunion Sacred Ibis, Réunion Flightless Ibis. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never encountered a source using these, I think it was only briefly used in the 90s, and will never be used again. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

See IUCN species page for a reference for the Reunion Sacred Ibis. Snowman (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I know, but their mere presence there doesn't mean the names are in use. They may have been used a few times each in the literature, but are abandoned now. In any case, wasn't it you who craved a shorter intro? Adding a horde of defunct names won't make it shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that readers who arrive on the page via redirects will be helped by including these alternate names in the introduction (which needs simplification in my opinion). Snowman (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt anyone would even search for those names. They could perhaps be mentioned in the article, but again, I know of no literature that use them or explain them. FunkMonk (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

See The Sixth Extinction website, which only uses Réunion Sacred Ibis, Réunion Flightless Ibis as English common names. Snowman (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The sacred part could be added, I'm not so sure with "flightless". FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree. Of course, "flightless" may be a misnomer. Snowman (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Since Réunion was not visited by Europeans until 1635, the 1611 painting could not have shown a bird from there."; See in "Flightless Birds" by Clive Roots. 2006. page 189. It says Portuguese saw the ibis in 1613. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That is so incorrect that it hardly warrants a comment. First of all, Francois Leguat coined the name for the Rodrigues bird after the Réunion species decades later, the author seems to be misinterpreting or citing outdated sources. Below he gives an equally incorrect account of the Broad-billed Parrot. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Since Réunion was not visited by Europeans until 1635, ..."; the en-Wiki and fr-Wiki articles on Réunion also says that Portugese visited the island before 1635 and these parts of the Wiki articles are referenced. Snowman (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed it, the source was a bad summary of another paper which did not make the exact same claim. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why not quote Dubois directly from page 170 of his book? I might be wrong, but it seems to me that there may be slightly different ways to translate certain parts of the quote. For example, his book does not mention a "Turkey-chicks", as far as I can determine. It also seems to say "one of the best game" and not "It is the best game", but I am not very good on the French language and used on-line translators. Snowman (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll check the date issue out. As for the quote, I'd rather use more complete quotes in authorised translations than snipped ones. Differences may be due to editions of the works. For example, only the first edition of Bontekoe's book includes an engraving of a Dodo, later ones don't. In any case, "Poullets d'Inde" is "turkeys", see also: FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If quote boxes are going to be used on this page, then I think that old quotes should have the original source for validation. I am fairly sure that some Wikipedians specialise in translations, so it should be relatively easy to obtain a translation of the short section of the original French book. Snowman (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'd rather use authoritative sources than homebrewed stuff. Verifiability, you know, it's a Misplaced Pages tenet. And again, there is no problem with that translation, turkeys are mentioned. It is your own oversight. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely, it will be easier to verify with the original book as one of the sources. Snowman (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Then go ahead and add it as a citation next to the existing one. FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Two on-line translators say "Poulets d'Inde" (with one "l") means "chickens of India" not turkeys. Walter Rothchild (W.R.) translated it as "Porphyrio", see a quote from the same book on the Réunion Night Heron article. Snowman (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You won't get far with a direct Google translation, that should be pretty obvious. See: http://fr.wiktionary.org/poulet_d%E2%80%99Inde It basically means "fowl of India", as in West India. Thus turkeys. See also: http://fr.wikipedia.org/Dinde "Ramené en Europe par les conquistadors espagnols en 1521, lors de la Conquête du Mexique, que l'on croyait être les Indes, ce volatile a pris le nom de « poule d'Inde », que l'usage a ramené à « dinde ». -- Curieusement, les Anglo-Saxons le désignent sous le nom de « poule de Turquie » ('Turkey Hen')." FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that we need a French speaking Wikipedian to help out with translation, because two on-line translators say it mean chicken and Walter Rothchild says it means Porphyro (see above). I do not know much about French, so you are probably correct about the Turkey. I am puzzled by Rothchilds interpretation. Has the meaning of the word changed over the centuries? Snowman (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So the article says it means "Turkey-chicks" and you say it means "Turkey" or "Turkey hen" above? See French dictionary, which I think says that "dinde" is an abbreviation for "poulet d’Inde". Where did the "-chick" part come from in the quote featured in the article? Snowman (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Poulet" can have various meanings, especially since it seems to be archaic. Even in English, "chicken" can even refer to an adult bird, as long as it is food. As for Rothschild, he wasn't exactly known for being cautious with his interpretations of old sources. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

...but "-chick" in English does imply a young bird or a very young bird. Saying that a bird has legs like a turkey chick is not very descriptive without specifying the age of the chick. I think that the Frenchman was using everyday animal comparisons in his account that people would easily understand. Similarly many anatomy descriptions are based on everyday items; for example a "nutmeg liver". Snowman (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In any case, the 1848 translation by Strickland omits "chick", so we could perhaps use his instead. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Another difference is that the 1897 translation says "It is one of the best Game on the Island" at the end (the same as Google translator). I think that translation is a art and subjective, so I suggest providing more than one in-line citation for the sourcing of a translation. Snowman (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it pleases you, change it. Again, these things are nitpicks that go beyond FA criteria, but feel free to add what you like. I won't. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hume and Cheke 2004 call it a turkey in their paper when they refer to Dubois' work. See also note 2 in that paper where they attribute Oliver as the translator and point out another error in Oliver's translation, which appears in the article, helping to prove that the quote is actually from Oliver's work. To me it seems that the translation peculiarities indicate that sections of Oliver's 1897 work appears in long quotes in the article and these are not properly attributed. Attribution is a basic principal on the Wiki that a stub should be compliant with. Snowman (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omissions; old quotes are sourced from translations in books. Verification would be better if the original version of the quote is also provided as a source. I have recently added one old source for DuBois's description of the ibis, which was known as a solitaire at that time. Snowman (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add what you find. But I won't be doing any searching for such, it isn't necessary, there's no urgent need for us to go past what recent published sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that it would be best source the 1897 translation by Captain Pasfield, which is a little different to the version currently used that is copied from the modern journals and books. Using the 1897 translation, the work of translation can be attributed with certainty and the PD copyright can be assured. Snowman (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know what the differences are first. This translation is from 1907. There's a different one from 1848. FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have sourced 1907 translations, then that is fine. However, the article's documentation of the 1907 translation including attribution for the translator is incomplete or missing. Snowman (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that's what citations are for. We don't attribute photos in captions either, unless such info is of interest to the reader. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

...but the article does not give attribution (to the translators of quotes) in citations or anywhere else. The in-line citations would be a good place to put all the attributions for citations, so that they can be seen under a heading such as "Notes" or "References" towards the end of the article. Of course, images have their attributions on the image file. Snowman (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• "The Réunion Ibis lived alongside other recently extinct birds such as the ... ."; It also lived on the island with creatures that are still present. A broader range of animals would describe the fauna of its time better. It lived with a variety of lizards, geckos, and insects that are likely to be seen as food by ibis. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add it if you can source it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Listing creatures that have also become extinct does not add much to ecology. Snowman (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So what do you think of the "paleoecology" sections that are present in all dinosaur FAs? They were part of their ecological systems when they existed, so of course they matter. What's left of native wildlife there is so pathetic to not even being an ecosystem anymore. The main point of Cheke and Hume's work is to theoretically reconstruct the ancient ecosystem, by listing such extinct animals. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A creature that became extinct a few hundred years ago also lived with many creatures that are still living, so a list of extinct animals seems rather limited to me. It might be different creatures that became extinct millions of years ago. Snowman (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your last sentence means. All these animals are recently extinct. If Cheke and Hume find faunal lists of extinct animals useful for understanding the ancient ecosystem, I don't think there's much reason for us to doubt them, or that our doubt even merits action. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by Snowmanradio (2)

• Some of the quotes in the article are copies of translations of old PD foreign language works. If the newer English versions are copyrighted, then complete paragraphs of the translation should not be copied to the Wiki. "This is true as well of the translations in the Penguin Classics series. Although faithful translations of public domain works, they each are protected by copyright."; see Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works. It presume that it will be necessary to find out when the translations were published in order determine the copyright status of translated quotes in the article. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There are only 19th century translations. Newer sources simply use those too. Republishing PD stuff doesn't renew its copyright. But even if we assume they were copyrighted, see the long copyrighted quote at: Thylacine FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that translating a PD work gives the newly created translated work a new copyright. I think that the copyright and attribution of all the quotations should be checked systematically in a similar way that the copyrights of images is checked. Snowman (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, irrelevant here, since all the translations are from 1907 and before. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You might be correct, but how does anyone know from the current documentation in the article. Snowman (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look. But again, how do you explain the quote in Thylacine? It seems to me that quotes come under fair use. They're not hosted on Commons, after all. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have had a quick look at Thylacine and provisionally I would say the quote from R Dawkins is probably copyvio. Also, I think that it should have been excluded with Misplaced Pages:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. I do not know if it is fair use or not, but the fair use rules on the en Wiki are strict and I will be surprised if it is fair use. It does not seem necessary or important for the article to me. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Would be good to know what the actual guidelines say about copyrighted quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The original quotes and translations (where necessary) of the quotes may all be in PD by luck rather than judgement, but I think that you will need to make this obvious in the documentation by finding out about the date of the translation. This is a consequence of copying long quotes into the Wiki article, which must not be a copy vio. Snowman (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted_material_and_fair_use So in theory, a few non-PD quotes could be used, as long they are attributed properly. Luckily, ours are PD. "Fair use does not need to be invoked for public domain works or text available under a CC-By-SA-compatible free license, so in such cases the extent of quotations is simply a matter of style." FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There will not be a copyright problem if the works and translations are all early, as they seem to be. I have done a rather random check on some of the quotes, but I have not done a systematic check on all of the quotes. Snowman (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the quotes, should the work of language translation be attributed? Snowman (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean who translated it? That's what the citations are for. And in many cases it isn't even stated in the books. Since they're PD anyway, it doesn't really matter, but add if you find out. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, on the Wiki it is much more preferable to attribute PD works, and I presume that this will include the work of translation of PD works. I have found out that Captain Samuel Pasfield Oliver translated Dubois and Leguat. Snowman (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, could give an interesting historical context, if anything. Again, add what you find. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Giving the proper attributions for the work of translation would be fair. I do not see what this has got to do with historical context. My role here is as a reviewer. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, since these things go beyond FAC criteria, if you want them added, you must do it yourself. I don't find it particularly important. I don't see any guidelines that say what you propose is necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Attribution is a basic principal here. Even Stub articles should have appropriate attribution. I see that you have used Rothchild (1907), as a source for some of the quotes in the article. Sometimes Rothchild says that his quotes are from Dubois (1674) and translated, but he does not say who the translator was, as far as I can see. Snowman (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the quotes themselves have sources, and have been republished by practically all subsequent authors. You need to demonstrate that it is an FA criterion to show who translated a PD text in a published source over a century ago before I'll waste time tracking this down. Or you can do it yourself, if you find it so important. The point of attribution on Misplaced Pages is for verification, not credit. From this point, suggestions that are not related to actual FA criteria will be ignored, unless feasible. This FAC doesn't need to take a month. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article had got blocks of texts in quotes from Oliver's 1897 translation. The quotes in the article have the same style, peculiarities, and errors as Oliver's work. I think that Dubois quotes in the article should attribute Oliver for the translation from French and source his book. See Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources, which says "Whether copyright-expired or in the public domain for other reasons, material from public-domain sources is welcome on Misplaced Pages, but such material must be properly attributed.". This is important. Snowman (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Those who wrote that obviously meant material as in original text written by someone, not that we should go and hunt down extremely obscure info on who translated what back in the 19th century. But as I said, please add such info if you find it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, it looks to me that Oliver's work of translation is not attributed nor sourced directly from his book in English of Dubois' French book. Snowman (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And as I stated earlier, feel free to add it. No one is holding you back. FunkMonk (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My role with this is as a reviewer. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your role is to give advise that is relevant to the FAC criteria. I'm sorry to say that it doesn't concern this FAC that you just discovered that Walter Rothschild quoted a translation from someone else over a hundred years ago, a fact which has not been mentioned in any of the relevant literature since. It is a mere curiosity that you can add if it so pleases you. It'll take as long as it does for you to reply to this comment. FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Attribution is important on the Wiki. It would be quite easy to attribute Dobois' translated work to Oliver. This is the Dubois' 1674 book, and this is Oliver's 1897 book, and both should open on the section of the books about birds. However, I have not looked into the translations of the other quotes, and you seem to be more familiar with those than me. Snowman (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You personally discovered Rothschild quoted Oliver. It is your own pet peeve, not mine. I couldn't care less, and the quotes are already PD and cited to a prominent source, however you turn it. So do it yourself, or forget it. I've done my part. And I repeat: The point of attribution on Misplaced Pages is for verification, not credit. The article cites a source which includes this text, but it doesn't matter where it appeared first. It is already verifiable, Understand? FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that your comment could have been phrased differently. Anybody can see the long translated quotes in the article that are based on Dubois 1674 French book alongside Oliver's 1897 English translation and see similarities. I note that Rothchild's book was published in 1907. The issue is about attribution (including attribution for translated works), not verification. Snowman (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, it would had taken you less time to add the citations than writing the above comments. And no, I'm still not convinced it is an FA criterion to clarify whoever published translations of a couple of PD sentences first. But well, if a second opinion could be provided, who knows? FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have attributed one of the quotations by Dubois and translated by Oliver. I provided the sources above, so anyone could have done it quite quickly. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool! And on that note, nice you found that Dubois had an article. I've been looking for that. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: Debois mentions feral goats on Reunion a lot. He also mentions pigs with horns (?hogs). Snowman (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Pigs are mentioned under extinction. As for goats, I'm not sure how they would affect this bird. Many animals were introduced at the time, but their impact was not the same, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The goat Wiki article says that goats remove native scrub, trees, and other vegetation. This probably is not as harmful as pigs, if pigs sniff out and eat eggs in ground nests. Snowman (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. In any case, no sources mention interaction between goats and the solitaire. FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Provisional impression. I think that this article has some interesting and well presented parts. It also has some parts that are complicated, which I struggle to follow, partly because there are so many facets, names, and drawings in the history of its taxonomy. I am finding this article more difficult to evaluate than most. For me, slightly different versions of text translated from foreign language sources tend to add the the difficulty in evaluating this article. I wonder if anything can be done to make the article easier to read, perhaps by copy-editing the language, re-organising subsections, or adding extra subheadings. If all the images are kept in the article, I wonder if double images would help organise the two ibis photographs and also the two similar Dodo paintings. Is my provisional impression flawed, because of my limitations and idiosyncrasies, or do others share any aspects my point of view? Snowman (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, the taxonomic history of the bird is complicated and hard to follow, there's not much we can do about that. If most details are to be presented and not just glossed over, it inevitably gets convoluted. And even then, there are many details I've left out, to make it even more user friendly. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)