Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:38, 22 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)

• 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)

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.

   Only one animal faces away (the image with multiple birds has at least two that face the text), but there isn't much to do about that single one, it doesn't fit anywhere else, in relation to the text. I am well aware of the guideline (which only refers to faces, by the way), which is why all other images comply to it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

   And another guideline is not to rotate images just to get round this. And they are guidelines, not Mosaic laws Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

   Who is rotating images? I moved one so it wouldn't face off the text ... I suspect the problem with images is because there are so many quote boxes, which makes me wonder if the article is over-quoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 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)

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 Solitairs? "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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)