Talk:Mauritius blue pigeon

Misidentified picture?

Image claimed to show a Mauritius Blue Pigeon, 18th century

The picture here is often claimed to depict a Mauritius Blue Pigeon, but reproductions of it I have seen in books have all been very small and in black and white (Fuller 2001, Cheke & Hume 2008). This full version shows some differences from images based on specimens, and does actually look like a Seychelles Blue Pigeon instead (red forehead, blue feet and tail). Anyone know what's up? FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that the illustration is a good likeness, the mystery illustration and the photograph of a Seychelles Blue Pigeon look somewhat different to me mainly in the colours on the head. Also, one had a grey bill and the other has a yellow bill. It is interesting that the mystery illustration looks completely different to other illustrations of Mauritius Blue Pigeons and I wonder why this might be. Snowman (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Since there may be some uncertainty over what that drawing depicts, and because we now have a colour photo of one of the three mounted specimens I'm unsure about what image should be in the taxobox. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• A new paper[1] just confirmed my suspicion, and I'll try to reorganise the article accordingly... FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mauritius Blue Pigeon

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mauritius Blue Pigeon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Fuller Extinct":

• From Broad-billed Parrot: Fuller, Errol (2001). Extinct Birds (revised ed.). Comstock. pp. 96–97. ISBN 0-8014-3954-X.
• From Red Rail: Fuller, Errol (2001). Extinct Birds (revised ed.). Comstock. ISBN 0-8014-3954-X.
• From Dodo: Fuller, Errol (2001). Extinct Birds (revised ed.). New York: Comstock. pp. 96–97. ISBN 0-8014-3954-X.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mauritius Blue Pigeon

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mauritius Blue Pigeon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Extinct Birds":

• From Dodo: Hume, J. P.; Walters, M. (2012). Extinct Birds. London: A & C Black. pp. 134–136. ISBN 1-4081-5725-X.
• From Red Rail: Hume, J. P.; Walters, M. (2012). Extinct Birds. A & C Black. ISBN 140815725X.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mauritius Blue Pigeon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I propose to take on this review and will be starting in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have taken so long to get started on this but I have been quite tied up elsewhere! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I've had plenty to look for myself... FunkMonk (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

First reading

The prose in general seems of a good standard. I have listed a few things I noticed below and will look at other aspects of the article later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wikilink - "extant"

Done.

• "... which some of its names refer to." - Sentences should not end in a preposition.

I reworded it, does it also seem strange?.

• "Another skin arrived in the Paris museum in 1800, collected by Colonel M. Mathieu, who collected specimens for Louis Dufresne." - You should avoid, as far as possible, repeating the same word in the same sentence.

Done.

• "Only these three taxidermied specimens survive to this day." - I am not sure about the use of "taxidermy" as a verb.

I think it's valid, but changed it anyway.

• "The Blue Pigeons perhaps colonised the Mascarenes, the Seychelles or a now submerged hot spot island by "island hopping" and evolved into a distinct genus there before reaching Madagascar." - I think this sentence should be split in two.

Done.

• "The legs were dark slate-grey, the iris was reddish orange and had an inner yellow ring. It was 30 cms (12 in) in length, ..." - Probably better to have a different sentence for the legs and iris and to what does the "It" at the beginning of the next sentence refer?

Done.

• "Juvenile Seychelles and Comoro Blue Pigeons have green feathers, so this may also have been true for juvenile Mauritian pigeons, as it was most similar to these species." - Mauritian pigeons needs capitalising for consistency and I think the last bit of this sentence is redundant.

Done.

• "The bird has also been depicted with facial crenulations, but neither this or the red legs are mentioned by contemporary accounts, and are thought to be erroneous." If you consider this sentence without the part between commas, you can see that the grammar is not quite right.

Done.

• "Only few descriptions of the behaviour of live Mauritius Blue Pigeons are known." - "Only" is awkward and probably redundant.

Done.

• "The only two images based on a live bird were drawn after this individual, by G. Haasbroek." - This sentence could be rephrased.

Done.

• "They must have become rarer from 1715 to 1810 during French rule over Mauritius" - Needs rephrasing.

Done.

• "went extinct" -You use this combination where I would use "became extinct". "Went" implies an active involvement of the bird in the process, but maybe this is accepted phraseology. You also use "gone extinct" in the lead.

Done.

• "Before humans arrived, Mauritius was entirely covered in forests, but very little remains today due to deforestation" - The subject of this sentence is "Mauritius", of which you say little remains! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.

page numbers

Hi, folks. I've upgraded the referencing mechanisms, here. A few of the collated footnotes could use more specific page numbers than are present. See:

• Hume 2011 has 18 refs to the large range 1–61 of this journal article that seems to have also been published as a small book. Page numbers can now just be dropped into |p= and the footnotes will automagically collate as needed.
• Cheke & Hume 2008, pp. 22–115 is also a rather large page range and should probably be narrowed for the specific bit being cited

Sincerely, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I can fix those two, but not Goodwin 83, for the same reason as Quammen on the Dodo page... FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I see you have done some alterations but do you want to do anything more about page numbers? What is the problem with Goodwin 83? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Everything brought up so far has been addressed, but the problem is that I don't own Goodwin's book, so I can't give the specific page number. But that isn't part of the GA criteria as far as I can see either, so maybe it's irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Some improvements have been made and the prose is now of a good standard.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This criterion is met.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are correctly laid out.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Article is well referenced. Some page numbers or precise range of pages are unavoidably missing.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not as far as I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This criterion is met.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This criterion is met.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are in the public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article meets the Good Article criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Pre-FAC look-through

Hi, you asked me a couple of weeks ago if I could take a look through this article. Sorry I didn't get to it sooner; I've been very busy recently. J Milburn (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think "congeners" is a little jargony, even with a link, for the lead; it's not a term I've ever read before.
• Your use of the word "hackle" doesn't match the explanation given in the article on the subject. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that consistency is good.
• "was ever depicted alive" Many of the birds drawn are depicted as alive- presumably, you mean drawn from a live specimen
• "apart from one brief mention by François Cauche in 1651 of "white, black and red turtle doves" encountered on Mauritius and Madagascar in 1638.[4]" So was this species also on Madagascar? Or was he referring to something else?
• "the binomen franciae" That's not a binomen, it's a specific name. The binomen is both the specific and generic name together.
• The OED, for what it's worth, is happy with "rediscribe", "rediscription" and so on. I'd recommend just using one word in those cases, rather than two words or a compound word.
• "taxidermy specimens" I'm not sure "taxidermy" can be used as an adjective like that.
• "Sub fossil" Again, one word.
• "Réunion Blue Pigeon" Link? Don't be scared of redlinks.
• "which they separated from" From which they separated?
• There's some real inconsistency (evident in your list of other extinct species) as concerns the capitalisation of common names. I'd recommend capitalise bird common names, and decapitalising all others.
• "Labourdonnaisia calophylloides" Again, nothing wrong with redlinks, as long as we're sure that this name is still in use.
• "Frugivorous birds often need a large area for foraging,and move between forest types to feed on different types of food, which grow irregularly." Awkward sentence. Also, missing a space.
• "brought out of the forest by a marron." What's a marron?
• Some of your footnotes lack page numbers, and some give incredibly long ranges. More accurate pagination would be useful.
• As a general note, I'd be aware of becoming a little preachy. You may be accused of going off-topic and talking about threats to living species/generally chastising those who contributed to the extinction. Sorry that this is vague, but I am not sure whether it is actually an issue.

Generally a really, really strong article. I've not checked sources for close paraphrasing, and neither have I done a literature search to check for further material, but, those issues aside, I would have no problem supporting this at FAC once the above issues have been dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! And don't worry about the time, I'm still waiting for a copy edit... I can fix those things in the mean time. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As for page numbers, are such needed even for scientific articles? I was specifically told elsewhere that it was only for books. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no hard-and-fast rule. I know when I'm writing outside of Wikipedia, I'm very careful to cite precise page numbers where possible- on-Wikipedia, it depends on the article. When you've got a very large range of pages, especially if you're citing particular data or factoids from within it, precise citations can be helpful. Be aware it's something which may come up at FAC (I've seen it come up in Sasata's a few times.) J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012 copy edit

• Hume and Walters (FN10) pp. 134-136 is about the Dodo, not about this bird, hence failed verification. --Stfg (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, thought I'd replaced the numbers. I'll fix it when I get home. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• The article is inconsistent about putting page numbers in the notes or in the citations. I believe this would matter for FA. --Stfg (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it was also noted in the thread above. I was of the impression that it wasn't needed for academic papers, only books, as someone told me that during another FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, seems sensible. FN4 needs aligning with that, though. --Stfg (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh, numbers for that were specifically requested in the GAN, because it was a very long article... So not sure what to do, but I'll probably just give numbers to all. By the way thanks for copy editing the two articles I requested! FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what's best with that either. The page numbers at FN4 are the same as in the citation, so they don't enhance anything. The only way to be more precise would be to split up FN4 by page numbers. Maybe best to wait and see what the FAC reviewers say? You're most welcome to the copy edits -- I'm enjoying the articles. --Stfg (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm not so familiar with this kind of citations, my original ones were converted by Br'er Rabbit, but he's now banned, so I can't really ask him for advice... FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so familiar either, but I know who is. I've asked at User talk:Diannaa#Advice on citations, please? She knows everything there is to know about citations. --Stfg (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, FunkMonk, I am a friend of Br'er Rabbit and he taught me how to do this stuff. My advice is that for an 12-page paper it would be better to cite exactly where the information is located within that paper. Right now the citations all show {{sfn|Hume|2011|p=28–39}}. The main citation down below shows the page range so what you should do is change each citation up above to show where exactly each piece of information came from. For example if a particular fact appears on page 29 just change that cite to read {{sfn|Hume|2011|p=29}}. If multiple facts come from the same page, the sfn template will automatically collate them for you. Br'er Rabbit taught me everything I know, but unfortunately he did not teach me everything he knows, alas. But please feel free to post on my talk page with citation questions or coding questions and I will try to help. I will also watch-list this page. -- Dianna (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll go and fix the issues that have been brought up, and hopefully we'll have a FAC later today... FunkMonk (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You might like to check out citation #8, as the listed page number is outside the given range. (page 21?) -- Dianna (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a typo, should had been 31. Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Conservation status?!

I can understand where the sidebar graph would be handy in illustrating the differences between living animals, but do we really need it for "extinct"? I think the term is pretty clear on its own, without the need for several hundreds of pixels of "explanation". Maury Markowitz (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, since it's on every Wikipedia page about recent animal species, why start here? It's a much wider issue, so such a discussion is more appropriate here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Animals FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The noise that it made :: hoax?

• The lede says " Its call sounded like "barf barf" and it also made a cooing noise.". This statement was added in this edit. Is it provable? is it a hoax? The remark about "barf" looks queryable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, then it would be a 300 year old hoax, so I doubt it. The original Dutch text says "baf", and this would apparently sound like "barf" in English. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I was just wondering about this too, having inspected the article because of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Some thoughts on WP:CHALLENGE. The key text is "Baf Baf [pronounced Barf Barf]" but it's not clear whether the editorial aside in square brackets is from a Wikipedia editor or from the J.P.Hume, the author of the journal article which supports this. As the bird is long extinct and the baf baf inscription was made about 1800, how can we be certain of a good phonetic rendering? Warden (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The translation in Hume's paper is from Tuijn 1969. Since Tuijn was Dutch himself, I think we can be pretty safe with the translation. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Baffen is an old synonym for modern Dutch blaffen, "to bark". So the animal apparently made a low barking sound. The "barf" translation serves to indicate that the word should not be pronounced with the Close-mid front unrounded vowel but with the Open back unrounded vowel. It might suggest a slightly too long sound, though. The greater nasality would not be a problem as it is unlikely the pigeon expressed himself in the highly medialised Dutch vowels ;o).--MWAK (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Anachronism

"Only these three taxidermic specimens still survive.[9]". Reference 9 is Rothschild 1907, p. 163. How can a 1907 book be the source the number of specimens now (in 2013)? Snowman (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Because none have disappeared since. But I see your point. Hume 20011 could be used as well. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please correct this anachronism. 11:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word in this context, but anyway, done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, I should have called it an obvious mistake. Snowman (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Mistake

Since a little word said about Cossiny accounts, I got the book "Lost Land of the Dodo: an Ecological History of Mauritius, Réunion & Rodrigues" to figure out where the information is coming from. So, there were two people, seems to be a father and a son - Jean-François Charpentier de Cossigny (the elder) and Joseph-François Charpentier de Cossigny (the younger). The book refers to the correspondence between Jean-François (not Joseph-François!) and Reaumur made in 1737-1755 and published in 1939-1940 (page 100). It also written that "Cossigny also occasionally sent specimens, but there was no systematic collecting until Poivre diverted Philibert Commerson from Bougainville's major South Seas expedition in 1768". Also the letter about "rare" was dated 1755, not 1730s. Citation: "The elder Cossigny wrote in 1755 of the Pigeon Hollandais that, common 23 years before, was now rare because of forest clearance and hunting by escaped slaves where forest persisted" (page 99). Though, I am unable to find any other descriptions of the pigeon made by either Cossigny in the book.--Vicpeters (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• If it was only common 23 years before 1755, then it ceased being so by the 1730s. FunkMonk (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  Could you please to tell what exactly written in your sources? Thank you.--Vicpeters (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

From Hume 2011: "Although Abbé Bonnaterre stated that the species was common in 1790 (Bonnaterre 1790; Renshaw 1939) and Milbert (1812) noted that he ate them in 1801, Cossigny’s 1755 account (Cossigny 1732-55) (see above) indicates that they had been numerous 23 years before, but were then rare because of forest clearance and hunting by escaped slaves." So it is a bit ambiguous, and I will rewrite it accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you made correction. It would be great to change the name too. Thank you!--Vicpeters (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, sadly he doesn't have an article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If you need any kind of information from that book, please feel free to contact me.--Vicpeters (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I own the book myself, I think the problem in the article here was that I left in some stuff from the old version of the article when I rewrote it, which was based on older/slightly incorrect sources. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Nitidissimus

The specific name was just changed here with no explanation. Is there a citation for this? FunkMonk (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the change, since no rationale has been given. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems del Hoyo and Collar 2014 made the change, and Birdlife follow all their changes. Any confirmation? FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

~50% higher res photo of the NMS specimen

Not sure it is otherwise an improvement though©Geni (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If I remove the tint and increase the contrast, as with the old one, I think it will be an improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Updated the older image with a larger, modified file. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)