Talk:Newton's parakeet

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Newton's Parakeet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy to offer some thoughts. Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and the fixes! The specimen in the following sentence was not sexed: "Newton's collector, Mr. Slater, had seen a male the year before, but was not carrying a gun at the time" Is it too vague to just write specimen? FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It isn't, but from the context I thought you meant a male- it may be worth saying something like "a specimen of unclear sex" or something. (I'm not that keen on "specimen", either- it's a bit clinical for me...) J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The source doesn't even say that much, so I wonder whether we could? It may have been a male, but Newton didn't state anything about its sex. FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That's fair- you do what you think right. Just be aware of the context- try not to inadvertently imply sex if we don't know it. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "probably been isolated on Rodrigues for a long time" Very vague. How long are we talking, here?

The source only says "but the derived nature of P. exsul suggests that it has long been on Rodrigues." Since no genetic studies have been successful, it can't really be said... FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• You mention beak colour twice in the lead

Removed one. FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• What's a "Bois d’olive"? Does it definitely need to be capitalised?

Clarified, it is a tree. It was spelled that way in the source, but I have changed it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• "after they were abandoned there by their captain" What were they doing on the ship? If they were military sailors, being abandoned by the captain would make sense, but it's a little jarring here

They were marooned on the way to Réunion, which they were to colonise, apparently because the French wanted to take possession of Rodrigues as well. How much should I go into detail? FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would read much better if you just said "after they were marooned there". Why were they marooned? Do we know? "marooned there following an argument with the crew of the ship on which they were travelling"?

It appears to be a bit complicated, and isn't stated in the sources relating to the parrot itself, only mentioned in passing. But I think it was because the French had taken over Réunion by the time they were to arrive, and since they were Huguenots, they were unwanted by the French. But I'd have to read up on Leguat himself to be sure. There is a longer account about him in the entry about the Rodrigues Solitaire in the Extinct Bird book by Fuller. They ended up on Mauritius later, and I think they were arrested by the French there. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Newton's collector, Mr. Slater, had seen a male the year before, but was not carrying a gun at the time." A quick reminder of the nature of 19th century naturalism!

Heh, I wonder how many species have been exterminated by museum collectors... The Great Auk also comes to mind. Should I add something? FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to add anything, it just struck me as very interesting! J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The mandible and sternum was" Were?

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Psittacus?

Whoops, changed to Psittacula. FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Skeletal features indicate an especially close relationship with the Alexandrine Parakeet, but the many derived features of Newton's Parakeet indicates it has long been isolated on Rodrigues" What are "derived features"?

Is the link enough? FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep. No idea how I haven't come across that term before. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "be Psittaculines." What does this term mean? Members of the family? Order?

Members of the "tribe" Psittaculini. Change? FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added a note to the article. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not clear on what relevance much of the third paragraph of the evolution section has.

It is to show that the hypothesis that all Mascarene parrots are members of Psittaculni may/is incorrect. Trim? FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm just worried about synthesis- I'm not sure we can really infer much from a study which didn't include the species. (However, I think a mention that a study took place which didn't include the species is actually worth including.) J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've cut off most of it, is it enough? FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "It was 40 cm (16 in) long. The wing of the male was 198 mm (7.7 in), the tail 206 mm (8.11 in), the culmen 25 mm (0.9 in), and the tarsus was 22 mm (0.8 in)." I don't really like the certainty of these measurements. Obviously, not all would have been that size- perhaps specify that these were the measurements of the specimens you've already mentioned?

Yep, will do. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• "cere", "nape" - Unexplained jargon

Linked, is that enough? FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "but appeared to change from blue tinged when viewed against light to green when viewed from the opposite aspect." What's the "opposite aspect" to against the light? In the dark?

The source says "the blue tinge in which predominates when the bird is seen against the light, and the green when seen in contrary aspect." Would contrary be better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on what this means- if I was writing, I'd probably simplify to something like "the same feathers can display both blue and green tinges, depending on the light". However, I'm happy to defer to how you want to write it. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've incorporated most of your phrasing, how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• You seem to mention twice that the green specimens may have been other species

But two different kinds. I've rephrased it, should it be tweaked further? FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• "full male Newton's Parakeet" Do you mean a mature male?

Yes, will fix. "Full" was taken form the source. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Newton's Parakeet may not have become rare yet by 1843." I don't see what this has got to do with the following sentences

Changed, does it make more sense? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Much clearer, but perhaps mention which government? J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The source doesn't say, but I assume Rodriguan, which would be British by extension, since it was a colony at the time. But that's speculation. FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps worth mentioning that some have mused it may have survived after the cyclones in the lead?

Done, does it look ok? FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me- it draws the reader in. A little mystery? How exciting! J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• The Leguat footnote isn't very well formatted. Same for the Fuller source.

Better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've changed them from Template:Citation to Template:Cite book. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Does Newton's 1875 source need italics in the article title?

Yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Is the Mauritius category needed? If so, perhaps create it and populate it with a few other articles?

Removed it, was added by someone yesterday. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

All in all, solid. The writing's a little choppy in places, but certainly not poor. J Milburn (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Heheh, yeah, I did this one as late night procrastination, to get away from a school assignments, so I may have been sloppy... FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for further fixes, I've changed some stuff, and added questions. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• On a related note, I wonder whether you have an opinion on this: I've included the frontpiece of Leguat's memoirs under behaviour, because Leguat is discussed under the section, and because it gives an impression of the circumstances when the parrot was observed. But there are also these images, Leguat's map of Rodrigues[1], and Leguat's map of his settlement[2], do you think any of those would make more sense there instead? FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think any of the three add much beyond decoration- I don't think there's much between them, to be honest. I take your point about providing some context, though. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and promote. It's not quite perfect, and would probably require a bit more polishing before FAC (if you're considering it) but I'm happy that it's ready for GA status. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to FAC this one, and I've done a few GAs that I don't think I'd care to nominate either. Those species are too "normal" or little known for me to really want to push the articles. But who knows, one day I may return to them if I want to get away from actual work... FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit, August 2013

User:Quadell is copy editing the article in response to a GOCE request made by User:FunkMonk. The following discussion is moved from the GOCE request page to here. --Stfg (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have proof read down to "Description" the entire article. I have made prose changes for stylistic reasons. I am listing below the issues I am not sure of, or that I don't know how to fix.

• You usually use the definite article "the" when referring to a specimen of Newton's Parakeet, as in "Newton scientifically described the bird in 1872". But once you use the indefinite article, in "Newton's collector, Mr. Slater, had seen a bird the year before". Should that be "the bird"? I'm not sure what the standard is for bird articles.

In that case, it is just to show that it was a random specimen, which was never caught. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The way it's worded, it sounds like it could be any bird. I have now reworded it. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Preserved in spirit" is an unusual formulation. (It sounds humorously like he continued on in spirit, though his body was dead.) What was the specimen preserved in?

Spirits, as in alcohol. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now reworded it to "alcohol". – Quadell ^(talk) 19:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know whether a British or American date format would be more appropriate in this article. You only have one date in the article, and I formatted it "14 August 1874", but feel free to use whatever format seems best to you.

I've written it in BE, so would probably be best for that too. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• The sentence beginning "The same paper found that the Mascarene Parrot..." seems off-topic. I would suggest removing it.

It is just to show that the "common origin" hypothesis for these parrot has been challenged. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• You mention the male had "darker upper-parts". If that is a standard way to refer to bird anatomy, then that's fine, but it sounds rather inspecific to this non-expert.

The source just says "darker above", so i tried to make it more specific. There's no standard. What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what "congeners" are. I tried reading the Congenic article, but it didn't clear it up at all. Would it be accurate to say "the bluish grey colouration set it apart from other members of its species"? If so, that would be clearer.

Congener: member of same genus. So your version is good, if you change species to genus. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh, oops, yes, that's what I meant. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• It seems to me that it would be preferable to use direct quotes around "slatey blue" in "(also described as slatey blue)" and around "greyish blue" in "and described it as greyish blue", but I'm not 100% sure the sources use those exact words. If so, direct quotes would be preferable, followed by an immediate source.

Added quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• WP:MOSQUOTE recommends blockquotes for long quotes "more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters". The first Leguat quote is shorter than this. On the other hand, I kind of like having it as a block quote to easily compare the coloration accounts. I didn't change it, but I thought I'd mention it. (Speaking of which, Leguat wrote in English? That surprises me.)

Heheh, to be honest, it is also a way to make space for the images in that section, which would otherwise clutter even more. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The fact that Newton's Parakeet survived long after Rodrigues had been heavily deforested shows that its ecology was less vulnerable than that of, for example, the Rodrigues Parrot." This wording seems wrong to me. I'm used to an island having a vulnerable ecology, but not a parrot. Do you mean "...shows that it was less vulnerable to ecological changes than..."? If so, then that seems like a better wording.

The source says it "survived well after the forests had been devastated, implying a less vulnerable ecology".

• It seems to me that Category:Parrots is redundant, since it's already in Category:Psittacula. (Category:Parrots says "Articles in the category "Parrots" include articles on any Psittaciformes taxon...)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now finished proofreading, and enjoyed the article. Many of the prose changes I made simply felt like a better "flow" to me, but may have been rather arbitrary, and I won't object if you undo some of my changes. Please let me know if this article is nominated for featured status. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, the prose was pointed out as a problem after the GA, so I think it was the main obstacle to FA. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Complete rewrite with questionable improvements

Please discuss massive, arbitrary changes here first, that do not seem to actually improve the article, before you implement them. There is no reason to cut stuff out of the intro and to remove sourced content. More sections is a style issue, and not necessarily an improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

My bad - I didn't realize that this article was already GA. However, in my experience, GA and FA reviewers typically pay scrupulous attention to things like item accuracy, sourcing and copy-editing. But they pay little attention to things like composition and organization, which tend to catch my attention. My concerns with this article are:

1. suppositions, like the apparent cause of green and blue specimens of this bird: 1)sexual dimorphism; 2)mistaken observation - they were actually two different birds; 3)preservative chemicals effecting a color change; 4)morphs or mutations, i.e. genetic level change. 5) birefringence. While one explanation must be true (or not - they could be seasonal color changes, for example) we have no evidence for which one. They directly contradict each other, and they're not factual information. Why include these speculations? I'd suggest merely stating that blue and green specimens have apparently been observed and leave it at that. Or if you must, put any suppositions into a Notes section.

They're not "superstitions", they are scientific theories that havebeen put forth by well known scientists to explain these discrepancies. They are very important in the description section. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

1a. there is also sheer speculation about whether the bird had red shoulder patches or not. That related birds did, is just guilt-by-association. Authoritative speculation is still speculation. Not one specimen has ever been observed with such patches.

See above. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

2. a long paragraph in the opening and Description sections are substantial duplicates of each other (but not *quite* - one has to carefully read both to obtain a full description of the bird). Wouldn't it be better to combine these in the Description section, and briefly summarize the major characteristics cf the bird in the opening?

Wikipedia leads are supposed to be summaries of the entire article, so there is no reason to cut this down. FunkMonk (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

3. under Behavior and ecology, 7 birds and 4 reptiles are singled out from hundreds of organisms big and small that went extinct due to Rodrigues deforestation. These are better placed under an Ecology section in the wiki-article on Rodrigues Island. If not, would anyone mind if I add a few dozen other creatures to the article list, plus a large number of wildflowers and bushes? What happened was an ecological disaster, and we can take that up best elsewhere.

hasn't been a problem in half a dozen other Mascarene species FAs. I've included species that were mentioned in a table in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

4. There isn't actually much taxonomic information in the taxonomy section. That's supposed to answer the question, where does this bird sit in the tree of life, what extant or extinct birds is it related to, and what can those relationships tell us about the bird itself (since it's extinct)? The actual content of Taxonomy is more like a Natural History. I'd suggest renaming the section to History, and starting a new Taxonomy section, moving things like the source of the specific name there.

Taxonomy also covers naming of taxa and change of names. So it sits perfectly well there. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

5. At end of Evolution section, why mention a molecular DNA study that's completely irrelevant?

Because it isn't, it debunks the hypothesis that all Mascarene parrots are of psittaculine origin. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

6. the first two sentences under Extinction don't tell us anything specific to Newton's Parakeet. If this parakeet was a victim of excessive hunting, then say it directly. That other birds were, is just guilt by association. It also seems dubious (again, an implied but not stated cause) that this bird was hunted to extinction for the taste of its meat. Anyone who's ever had to shoot, collect, clean, skin and cook a handful of small birds for his meal can attest to the unlikelihood of wanting to repeat it. That it tastes good probably better belongs under some section like Popular Culture (i.e. exotic cuisine in this case).

Context is required for articles here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

7. the article elides exactly how this bird got its common name. A direct sentence in the intro like: The bird was named for British ornithologist Alfred Newton who first scientifically described it in 1872.

That should be obvious from the text. In any case, no sources state specifically which Newton it is named after. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

8. Under Extinction, might want to say Henry H. Slater was a biologist. For 'assistant colonial secretary William James Caldwell', honorific titles as part of a proper name should be capitalized. In any case you may wish to say that he was a Mauritian botanist, which tells us a lot more about his role than Assistant Colonial Secretary. Unless his middle name is truely significant, it can be shortened to a letter or omitted altogether. There's also a prior reference to "J. Caldwell" - the first reference to a name should be fully expanded; later references can be shortened (I don't think it's good style to abbreviate a first name to a letter).

The problem is we can't go past what the sources say. If you have sources stating all this, feel free to add. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

9. The last three sentences under extinction are sheer speculation; no bird has been seen for nearly 140 years. The IUCN, authority for the species, has listed the species as officially extinct since 1875. The Mauritian government doesn't list it among the endemic species. Speculation should be moved to a footnote, or omitted unless there's some factual evidence to support it. We are in a sense propagating a rumor.

That is a matter of taste. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

10. Under Behavior and ecology, this quote by Leguat, a Frenchman, is letter-boxed: "Hunting and Fishing were so easie to us, that it took away from the Pleasure." That's almost certainly a translation from the original French to the English diction and spelling of the time. However,in modern English, we'd spell "easie" as "easy", and not capitalize "Pleasure". In the next sentence, we'd not capitalize "Parrots", either.

It is a direct quote, so should not be changed.FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

11. In the "Behavior and ecology" section heading, 'ecology' should be capitalized. The first and every important word of headings and titles are conventionally capitalized.

Not on Wikipdia at least. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

12. Under Description, you might want to make clear who "Jossigny" was: Commerson's draftsman, a young Australian painter named Paul Philippe Sanguin de Jossigny.

As above, can't go past what the source says. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

13. Under Taxonomy, there's a "Mr. Vandorous", who was actually William Vandorous, a local resident and ship's pilot. Since he's not a significant personage, we might want to omit his name and just say a local resident shot the bird (or at least add a first name, if its kept).

As above. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

14. This parakeet is a member of a set of parakeets descriptively called "ring-necked parakeets", and the wikilink for Psittacula refers to the genus as "Afro-Asian ring-necked parakeets. Rodrigues Ring-necked Parakeet redirects here, so it may be nice to list the redirect name as a synonym in the opening sentence, and mention that it is one of a number of ring-necked parakeets in the genus Psittacula.

None of the sourcs used state this, so would be problematic. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

15. Blue parrots being quite rare, and the only familiar one being the Hyacinth Macaw, it might be interesting to note that Newton's is not closely related to the blue/purple parrots of South American genus Anodorhynchus

Only if we have a source specifically stating this. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

16. To be complete about the etymology, it'd be nice to write something like "The specific name is derived from the Latin psitta (parrot) + feminine diminutive suffix -cula and French exsul (exile), hence the name means "little parrot of an exile", i.e. in reference to its exiled discoveror.

Sbalfour (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt the specific name is French, would rather be Latin. As for the genus name, it is not monospecific, so it is kind of redundant here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for taking the time, since I'm pretty much the sole writer of this article so far, I'll go through the points when I get the time, and implement what I agree with already, and discuss the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I may nominate this for featured article at some point, and I'll see what of this I can take into account. Butin general, structure is a subjective issue, and removal of sourced material will not be done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it really extinct?

voiceofreason 10:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Or is it believed to be extinct? What is the definitive source for this determination or is there one? The reason I ask this is due to the number of species that were thought to be extinct but have since been proven not. is one source of such information but there are many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs)

Please quit reverting to a version that is not supported by any sources. What we write here is not based on your personal theories, but on published science. If a a bird shows up, of course, but until then, quit the vandalism. FunkMonk (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Why can't you simply read the questions above and respond to them? Who or what is the definitive source of something being extinct? If there isn't one then saying something is extinct as a fact is incorrect and simply an opinion (hence, not a fact). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.27.248.34 (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses published sources. All of these (apart from some really old ones) say the bird is extinct. Therefore that is what we write here. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is the authority in question. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Edward Newton?

E. Newton noted that he had expected the male would be adorned with a red patch on the wing, but that the absence of this indicated it was immature. He still found it more beautiful than the female. − Alfred Newton (scientist) or Edward Newton (his brother)? --OJJ (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the question? The sentence starts with "E. Newton", and he is the author of the citation at the end of it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)