Talk:Western rosella/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Since I already commented on the talk page, might as well take this one. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Please excuse my work in progress, any comment, especially on structure and missing facts, is most welcome. My further comments will be marked in PINK only—unsigned—and dated if helpful [a template I discovered when inadvertently 'pinking' another user]. After improvements and critique here, I will be hand-balling this over to FA ruckman Casliber. — cygnis insignis 11:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That pink is ghastly, possibly carcinogenic, so I'm opting for this colour [purple] to code my responses. cygnis insignis 16:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, can't say light coloured text is good for my colourblindness... I'll give you some time to work before I continue the review, I have a FAC review to finish as well anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I can drop the colour altogether, the appearance could become psychedelic if the other party uses their preferred style. I scraped out a cheatsheet from the WA museum that exposed some glaring omissions, but the content is now stable enough for when you get around to it. I have the idea that Cas is taking this off to FA, so any emerging concerns will not go unaddressed, and your assistance in my preparation of a good submission [and article] for that is a boon. — cygnis insignis 04:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• The second paragraph under Taxonomy is a huge wall of text, would be easier for the reader if it was broken up.

Broke out the section on Mathews, and reordered to emphasis over chronology. Any better?

Yeah, any split of it is fine. FunkMonk (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I will have a go at separating collection to break it up further, but could do the same with the gallery [funny thought, but tending serious].

On the gallery, I think you could keep the type illustration under taxonomy and whatever drawing that shows a subspecies we otherwise don'y have photos of. But I think we should predominantly use photos. FunkMonk (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• As mentioned on the talk page, the image selection could be a lot better (have a look on Commons and Flickr), and there should be no gallery.

I prefer no gallery, but left those for placement when someone else had a look. All are found from taxonomic discussion, some are mentioned as illustrations of types and I mused on the idea of putting the whole gallery in that section as mini-thumbs for reference. Not able to venture to flickr and image heavy sites, will try with better access. I thought the image in the taxobox was okay, the demo of behaviour being the better choice, walking around being typical

There's a point in including old illustrations and such in the taxonomy section, but I don't think they are fit for the taxobox, where photos of live specimens are always preferred (if available). Behaviour doesn't need to be shown in the taxobox, the most important part is that the features of the animal are clearly shown, which the previous, foreshortened, blurry photo didn't either. I can maybe suggest some specific photos if you can't access image heavy sites. FunkMonk (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Wish the example was not the least amazing of Lear's portraits, so I could argue otherwise, several of these are important citations and "specimens" and at least one is the holotype. Just a placeholder in the taxobox with my unpopular opinion, and happy to replace from a selection that excludes captive specimens [which are not typical of the population]. If you are able to make that selection, having overcome your handicap as I have, I would be further indebted to your contribution. Cheers.

I think these two on Flickr could be good taxobox contenders:[1][2] Other images of interest there could be this of a female[3], this showing the underside[4], this showing the back[5], or this headshot:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel the camera blew out the automatic colour in the close ups of one set, the female shot is better balanced and might benefit from a crop. Suggestion 2 taxobox is less garish, does not crop the tail, but has unfortunate shadows; such a shame, being at a hollow is good work by that photographer. The underside shot is also great. I will ask around and see who might be willing to give up their copyright, but any of these are would be a great improvement on the current selection. They are not easy to shoot, except when feeding in the open on a managed lawn. Apologies, I am too opinionated when it comes to bird photography, will work on a solution if Cas doesn't pick something out.

If the colour is the problem with the first photo, we (or I, I can see probably dimmer colours) could do some adjustments in photoshop? You think it would work if it was less saturated, or how? FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The colour balance could be approximated by viewing the images that sample more sky, and reassigning that to the close-up image; the sky is not typical of the area and the blue tinge of the beak is too pronounced. With those adjustments the image would be ideal for the taxobox.

Does this[7] look any better? FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

lovely, mate, a very close crop that will work well in the taxobox I think.

Cool, here is the image on Commons for you:[8] I'm surprised it came out well enough, since, as I mentioned before, my colour vision is pretty deficient... FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that it is in the taxobox. I'm trying to get in touch with a bloke on flickr who has retained the copyright, but may have some extra shots and willing to release them; shooting at the nest is not something I want repeated unnecessarily. I may be able to get all we need for the nominate subspecies, getting a clearly defined P. i. xanthogenys may be tricky. Typing this has given several more ideas for sources, it will get there before long.

In any case, we should definitely show the female, and this[9] seems to be our best photo of one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed we should. You up are for a co-producers credit on this jam, kudos. I added that to the taxobox as well, they make a nice pair and I am not inclined to be judgemental in these matters. 16:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, though I'm a bit puzzled why the female's tail had to be cropped in half? Symmetry between the photos isn't that important, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

the symmetry was a bonus, I tend to crop out extraneous detail to fill the frame. I could make a more balanced composition of the second, and the tail does give some indication of their proportions, but that detail is well covered in whatever illustrations remain. I'm still eyeing off the superlative photos of a WA photographer on flickr, but hesitant to put them on the spot by asking directly for a release of free images as there is enormous amounts of time invested in capturing bird shots.

Hmmm, I wouldn't consider physical features "extraneous detail", but yeah, I agree with the surrounding space. But I don't think part of the animal itself should ever be cut out (we should consider ourselves lucky to have the entire animal in frame). FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I meant to note the lack of detail in the tail made it extraneous, being just an outline, but will overwrite the file with anothr option later.

• There are some duplinks. You can highlight the with this script:[10]

Had a go with a cruder method, caught some. Are links in citations and captions overdoing it?

As long as the links occur once in the captions, it should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll keep checking.

There are still duplinks in the article body. I'd recommend using the script, it is much easier and more dependable. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed with the script, as mentioned below.

• I wonder if the subgenus name should just be redirected to Platycercus, where it is best covered.

Not covered there, so do I read that as preferably included there? Just a taxon to me, but I intend to work on it as article with separate ecology, descript, distrib and so on to clarify the alliance of psittacines (eg. explain the redirect from the available name Licmetis that targets 'corellas', classified as a subgenus).

Oh, I mean it is best to cover it there once someone gets to write about it... It is not currently covered yet. FunkMonk (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Will redirect or split, blue soon [platycercine classification is contentious and unstable, a split will clarify the various accepted treatments].

• The intro is way too short for an article of this length.

Expanded, will revise again as needed.

Updated again, Cas enjoys working on them, I think, and may refine or expand post HANZAB cross referencing.

• Note; This item was verbatim, being inadvertently pasted from a source I was using in an earlier edit, although I thought at the time it was text that was present before I expanded the article last week, not so, and my only concern about copyvio is one perhaps arising from my series of tweaking rewrites that return to the source's phrasing by accident. cygnis insignis 21:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• There is a puzzling lack of links to the people mentioned under taxonomy. No Edward Lear, no Lord Stanley? And those were only from a quick glance.

Lear is mentioned in the lead; not a the 2nd instance before the citation and link to his crucial monograph. The Lord [mundane] is mentioned, as "Edward Smith-Stanley, 13th Earl of Derby", I'm not sure I am conveying the sequence of events effectively if that was overlooked: Lear and Vigors honoured the Lord in the epithet, Gould gave a vernacular appellation to recover the commemoration in his vernacular title when the epithet stanleyii was reduced to a junior[?] synonym, "The Earl of Derby's Parrakeet", by then he had ascended to 'earl' and assumed the seat held by his pater.

I mean in the article body; everything linked in the intro should be linked at first mention in the article body as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I installed the script and fixed a couple of dupes. I did not know that, and have adjusted accordingly. Are image captions part of the body of the article in that respect?

• It appears there was a map under way?

Necessary and absent, but I believe it is in hand.

• The intro is also a wall of text, could be broken into two or three paragraphs.

Being an arbitrary succinct of key points, I broke it three ways and and am not uncomfortable with that.

As long as the info in each paragraph is related, it should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaving this as unresolved to remind me to further refine the prose, cheers.

• As far as I know, bold text should only be used in the intro (for the name of the subject).

I am generally aghast at overuse of bold, and think Cas is on the same page…, however, important redirects are emboldened as a highly restricted application of our MOS to clarify navigation. I've paid close attention to what nomenclature is deserving of bold with regard to this system of links and 'end point' [Platycercus icterotis xanthogenys, "I have arrived, there is no article on the subspecies"], and have reserved the format to include the full title of the subspecific description and other names adopted into our language that have assured precedence [moyadong'].

@Casliber: What is your opinion on this? 04:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we can let it be for now, but I expect it will be brought up during FAC by someone else anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Platycercus he had erected in his revision of parrot-like birds (Psittaciformes)" Seems a strange way to put it, since Psittaciformes are parrots too?

clunk-clunk removed here

• "They were separated from the genus Psittacus" What does "they" refer to here? You have only mentioned one species.

That one, and I see your point. Not fixed yet, there is a gap in my understanding.

• "and a description of inland specimens as Platycercus icterotis xanthogenys" It is hardly the description that bears this name, but a population?

Technically, it a description of a parrot on a stick.

In that case, it should refer to the specimens, not the description, as having been given that name. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• "catalogue of Psittaci" Why link and use this term rather than just say parrot?

the term he used I think, I changed it to this as a looser term for the group. I prefer something classier than parrot, no sense in confounding matters with a term without class or order.

• "xanthogenys" Which means?

In ornithology: xanthogenys Gr. ξανθος xanthos yellow; γενυς genus, γενυος genuos cheek, chin, jaw Looking for the author who ventured a guess, Mathews from memory

Add to the article? FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a ref somewhere that mentions the names comparatively, as I remember it the epithet icterotis is literally 'yellow-cheeked' and Salvadori's species description was distinguished as xanthogenys, also meaning, literally, 'yellow cheeked', and a later author hoped to avoid that (me too).

• "The author Gregory Mathews cites the work" Why present tense here and elsewhere for century old papers? Also, always give date for revisions.

will do, rev will be given when I can access

• It seems strange that you jump from historical works, right to current day recognition of subspecies, and then back to century old works again. Better to give all the historical background (and proposed subspecies) first, and then chronologically list the current system later.

will revise to chronological or some other order when and if the content remains, some authors were ignorant of others works and things are not orderly in sequence

• "P. icterus salvadori" You give etymologies for other synonyms, but not this one. Or maybe you do that further down, but it is very hard to follow when you don't do it at first mention.

will look again, but not the most important point imo

I'm not able to find a ref that states what we safely assume, Mathews is honouring Salvadori unless one of his children also had that name. Jobling will say 'named for the taxonomist Helga Salvadori' for everything that is (or was).

• "the genus name Hesperapsittacus was described and this species was proposed as the type" Specify which species, you have mentioned none in the paragraph.

will fix

Currently, no other species is mentioned up to that point, and there has been some rephrasing.

• "A new taxon P. icterus salvadori (yellow-cheeked parrot) differentiates those found at" By who and when?

will fix

I have the idea it was Tom Carter who sent it and that could only be inferred. Whitlock also lived at the location, who was keeping his head down but was named for the other subspecies by Mathews (inadvertently). I may have missed something, but Carter reported bagging one with Whitlock elsewhere and I need a ref that connects these specimens, if it exists.

• I must say, even for me, who am used to writing about very complex taxonomic histories (see for example Lord Howe swamphen or Réunion ibis), the taxonomy section here is written in a very convoluted, at times confusing, way, and was often hard to understand. I think this is mainly because of the arbitrary changes in tense, lack of chronological order, and long stretches without mentioning dates. I also think you could simplify and summarise further. Casliber might be able to help with this.

I'll have a look at your articles sometime, and another look at the unrefined cluster of facts if it is not cut.

I put in some dating and revised the Mathews digression, and added a missing citation for the two subspecies.

• "with broad cultural consultation, has proposed moyadong [moy’a’dawng] and kootonkooton" You mention many other variants of common names without bolding them, so why this one should be bolded seems very puzzling.

excepting two, they don't seem important in the sources i've see. They varied in checklists from page to page until c. 1920, and the context is 'common names'. The next paragraph is about two names which were in use before 1830, one is already emboldened in the lead and the other is in bold [an important and unambiguous redirect].

it doesn't now

• "and two others in the language of the indigenous people" Which names?

will revise

revised as of 18:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Gould's explanation of his neologism as apology in naming the 'parrakeet' was inserted "as bound by justice to the first describer …" This is very hard to follow.

will revise / I will pause to amend that attempt to convey the impassioned loyalty of Gould, when I wrote that the tears were still wet on my cheek. The expertise with which Gould handled his ignoble task involved the use of periphrasis, my own attempts are pitiable in comparison, however, know this, dear sir, there is a parrot in a drawer that is forever entitled to bear the name Earl of Derby Parrakeet! More later …

• "Other vernacular emerged" vernaculars?

wiil do / I decided the word is unsuitable in the sense I want to use it, the revised sentence now begins at:

"Other terms are used to identify two specimens illustrated in Mathews …"

• "if recognised as distinct; the latter are noted and named for dark red feathers at the back" This (and other differences between subspecies) belong sunder description.

The study was of captives

Options are I emphasise that, or move it all to description, or split the content between the two sections?

Ok, so that part only applies to captives? I think that should be made clearer, then. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

mentioned as captive variation is description section, and description in the captive section

• I will continue the review once the above points are fixed, might become a bit confusing here otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Cheers

• "with red on the grown only" What?

It passes a spell check?! I'm assuming our collaborator meant crown.

• You mix UK and US spelling. You have both colour and colour, for example, should be checked throughout.

I searched on 'color' and the two hits are coloration and diversicolor, coloration is what Fowler and OED says and I haven't noted a shift. I wouldn't object to switching the spelling of color, but AUEn maintains 'colour'. I don't expect spelling irregularities in my contribs, being attuned to applying both in editing and proofs.

This is from the bottom of the description section "changing to adult coloration". FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Pardon, not following, coloration is the correct spelling in British English until it shown to be otherwise (Fowler, OED).

Oxford states "colouration" is the UK spelling.[11] It is possible that coloration is an acceptable alternative, it just looked inconsistent to me. But leave that for now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I intend to write them a stern note when I calm down! I consulted the five relevant physical texts, "colouration var. of COLORATION" … [flips page back] … "color var. COLOUR. [next line] coloration/kul-uh-ray-shuhn/ n. (also colouration) 1. appearance as regards colour …" Australian pocket Oxford dictionary (Seventh ed.). 2013. ISBN 9780195527391. Macquarie, the national dictionary, gives a similar cross reference, and both would state regional restrictions in usage. This, 'coloratura' and so on are both correct in UK-En, being correct in Am-En is a bonus. Amen. As I say, knowing and discriminating both is something I try to keep across, so I will chase up a view in our MOS.

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Spelling#coloration, if I don't survive then continue on without me

• You seem to repeat the difference between the male and female in two different paragraphs, would probably be best to consolidate this.

pending

• "This arrangement allies the western species to the "Platycercus eximius-adscitus-venustus" complex," those other species could be linked.

Link to genus when it covers the concept?

Both, but you mention the species eximius-adscitus-venustus without linking. FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

My current position is that the concept "Platycercus eximius-adscitus-venustus" gives no benefit to the reader by linking each species, the correct placement for facts related to that concept is the genus, or a 'however' template that is revisable for each species concept. We are subservient to sources on this, which is that the concept is defining each as something other than species, linking each is to silently defy that hypothesis. I will create that content at the genus, and link it when I do. tl;dr considered, fine as it is.

In that case, you could separately state which species are most closely related to this one, and link them then. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• FunkMonk, your ears must have been burning, I was just thinking bout what to do with this. If you can check over anything but the unstable part, it will be serving to assist my in contributions elsewhere at the very least. I've been working on another bird with this one in mind, and was thinking of withdrawing this nom before it morphed into an albatross. cygnis insignis 08:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• "and wandoo (Eucalyptus wandoo, et al)" Why et al?

I meant to put wandoo in somewhere, but putting it under that felt like an easter egg link.

So does the source refer to more species or one? FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of the sources say 'wandoo', some specify Eucalyptus wandoo. I know what they mean, but can only say what is written. I could try to dodge and obfuscate to clarify that for those who don't know what is meant by the concept 'wandoo', which would be most people on the planet.

• I will continue today, as the text seems to be stable now. I might skip the subspecies descriptions for now, though, as it could be in need of some trimming. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Or rather, now... FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk, goodness, cheers for wading through this, all I can say is that I will do my best to see that your efforts pay dividends in improvement in content I create in the future. I'll see what I can address immediately and work through the rest. Cheers again for assisting me. cygnis insignis 04:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not that far off, I think, once the issues below are fixed, and perhaps after doing some trimming in the taxonomy and subspecies sections, it should be fine for GA. I think it would need a copy edit before FAC, though. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

by my reading of the MOS, I can trim the article by removing any conversions and using a link and/or footnote on unamerican units. Is that an acceptable solution, was it for consistency that you requested more be added? cygnis insignis 03:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

My issue is the sentence structure itself rather than measurements, it could be a lot more concise, as in you could say many of the same things with fewer words (not including measurements). FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk, Forgive me, I acknowledge that could be construed as obtuse. I propose to do away with conversions from SI units altogether. How does that sit with you? cygnis insignis 13:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, the "not including measurements" part meant regardless of what type of measurements you use. I personally prefer to always include conversions. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• "The captive occurrence in Australia and several other continents began before 1830 in England." No source.

Added Olsen, who stated what Lear has as the full title, they are illustrations of living specimens.

• "Authors came to express doubts on the status of the subspecies,[44] and compiled observations show no geographical separation." Both statements seem to contradict earlier text? Are the subspecies in doubt or not, do they live the same places or not?

The subspecies are ecologically isolated, not geographically, and there is a zone of intergrade in the characteristics of each. Any subspecies implies doubt, of course, presumably more than a concept as two species that hybridise when they meet. The term I have seen recently is evolutionarily significant units in conservation pov of taxonomic concepts, eg. an effort to reintroduce subspecies from another region is a less preferred option.

• "The occurrence of the species is relatively and historically uncommon" So it is uncommonly seen? The sentence could be simplified to say this more clearly, now it is hard to decipher.

"The historical records of the species indicate it relatively uncommon, although it has been noted more often in southern regions."

• I'm not sure the Distribution and habitat is the palce to compare it physically with other species, as you do now with a few.

Intended to be diagnostic for similar species in the range, which I have seen deprecated for inclusion. Okay in "Descptn?.

Yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• "P. icterotis icterotis is seem amongst" Seen?

Fixed

• "The subspecies feeds both on the ground and in trees." Why "the subspecies" here, and not anywhere else where you give info that applies to the entire spcies?

Because most observations of xanthogenys are with telescopic sights, and what is seen is not recorded. The author notes this has been observed in icterotis.

And that's me being a smart ass. I have the idea it is peculiar to the the subspecies in forested habitat.

• "by ringnecks, Barnardius zonarius" Link. And remove link further down "and Port Lincoln Barnardius zonarius parrots".

fixed when I moved it.

• The image selection still seems a bit nonsensical to me. Old illustrations (very similar to each other, therefore somewhat redundant) are still overrepresented, whereas photos that show parts of the bird otherwise not shown[12][13] are left out. There should be room enough to show both illustration of photos, but photos should be favoured.

I'm this close to getting a deluxe set of photos, however, why photos are favoured is a mystery to me. I will see about getting access to those images you found.

Sounds good with new photos! As for why photos are favoured, illustrations have a tendency to be wonky and be based on long dead stuffed specimens, so they are many steps removed form the demeanour of the live birds. FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

That is persuasive, especially for illustrators who did not have photo and video references. My position is brought forward from botanical illustration, the best are botanists (or work in collaboration with one) who create an idealised image. Plumage also has sheens and complex underlying colors, something else you probably know more about, which are difficult to reproduce except in hi-res film and sensors. I would make an exception for Lear, who is obviously drawing life, almost a portrait of some perplexed individual in England trying to get its head around snow.

• Likewise, some of the placements seem odd. Why a photo of two juveniles under feeding, and not udner description, where their colouration is mentioned? And if the point was to show birds feeding on stuff provided by humans, why not show this[14] wild bird feeding on bread on a bench?

As above, a better choice is preferred over the average selection available.

Hope so, but be aware of copyright issues. FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting, I'm somewhat familiar with copyright and will help them choose a license.

• "As with the white-cheeked rosellas" Why no scientific name, and why not use the BirdLife common name (Pale-headed rosella)?

The author gave it that way, without a systematic name, and I can't assume a one to one correspondence with other 'rosellas' unstable taxonomy.

• "of the female being fed by male" The male?

fixed

• "usually a meter or so" Give conversion.

"usually a meter (a few feet) or so" something like that?

Just use an automatic conversion template you don't have to to the calculations yourself, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• "the nest site may be within a hollow or in a spout-shaped hole" and "The nest site is typically a spout shaped entrance" appears to be repetition, could be consolidated into the same paragrapghh.

a little better?

• "45–105 mm in width, at a hollow between 0.35–1.5 metre" Give conversions.

as discussed I've opted to remove conversions, which was pointed out to be mixed.

• "Eucalypts are a preferred tree species in which to lay their eggs, the dominant Eucalyptus marginata of jarrah forest, or in the tall forest tree karri,[35] but they especially favour wandoo" and "Other trees selected include eucalypts such as marri, wurak, yandee E. loxophleba (york gum) and moitch (flooded gum)". Not sure why these sentences are several paragraphs apart, and not consolidated into one paragraph.

merged, ty

• "The average size of eggs is 22 by 26 mm,[20] and measurements from a sample of 29 eggs gave a range of 23.5–27.7 × 19.9–22.5 mm" Give conversions.

as above

• State in the caption of the illustration in the captivity section that it shows a captive male, otherwise it isn't clear why it is relevant to the section.

good call, replaced caption with relevance

• "The damage to crops is regarded as minimal, appearing to eat fruit in orchards already damaged by other species" This is incomplete, you need to state what that is eating fruit.

resorted that section

• "Nectar, insects and their larvae, and fruit are also eaten, especially during the breeding season." Why a tiny standalone sentence, instea dof merging it with the preceding paragraph?

done

• "For the perceived impact on agriculture the species was declared vermin by the Western Australian state in 1921.[30]" I would move this to the beginning of the conservation secton, which continues right off from that sentence anyway.

lol, I just did that too. Done.

• "Illustrations of the family of Psittacidæ, or parrots: the greater part of them species hitherto unfigured, containing forty-two lithographic plates, drawn from life, and on stone" Not sure why this full, long title is needed in an image caption. Also, the image would seem more relevant in the taxonomy section than under distribution.

Used the half-title instead. I may drop it when the image set arrives, shall we revisit image placement later (but prior to you doing a close)

• "The population has a cline in colour variation from east to west, and variable degrees of hybridisation are reported east of the Darling Range and in the southern region and Stirling Range.[36] This intergrading between forms is recorded at locations such as Albany.[4]" This would seem more relevant under taxonomy.

I'm inclined to separate "geographic variation" from the subspecific concept, as is done in most of the sources, and think it more relevant to description. I moved it from subspecies, which is confusing the different perspectives.

• "Unlike like the sisters of Platycercus" Very jargony, just say related species or similar.

"The behaviour is similar to other rosellas (Platycercus sp.), but does not share their reputation for noise and aggression." better?

• "Head scratching is done with a claw arching out behind and over the wing. As with the white-cheeked rosellas, the underwing stripe that is characteristic of juveniles in the genus is retained into maturity by the females." What does any of this have to do with captivity? Also, seems intriguing that it has a claw on the wing?

Only observed in captivity. As for the head-scratching thing [smart ass], it's said to be unusual; I will have another go at connecting the claw to foot tomorrow.

Heh, I genuinely thought you meant it had a claw on its wing (which isn't unusual in some other bird groups), but I now see you meant it uses its food, which could be clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

And I recall seeing a note on that now that you mention it, and not terribly surprising I suppose; yet another thing for me to learn about aves. Forgive my ignorance when I thought you were being flip. I have it currently as, "Unusally, head scratching is done by arching out the foot behind and over the wing." Aside from the typo, there is a grammar concern: fugitive prose I think it is called, trying to avoid plagiarism. I'll have another go if you like.

• "The breeding season occurs from September until January, the clutch of four to five eggs is incubated in around twenty days. Fledging is about twenty five days after hatching, full adult feathers appear at around fourteen months." Why is this under captivity? Should be consolidated with the info under breeding.

Authors are very careful to separate field data from observations in captivity. I could add captive data to other subheadings, but only with elaborate qualifications; another reviewer might argue to split it from breeding (I've seen content bouncing around sections and revised to suit the last reviewer, a game others are happy to comply with). Subheadings are a help and hindrance to arrangement of content, and one has to make some arbitrary decisions, so any guidance on this is welcome.

• "The species is able to breed in the first year, and females may lay up to two broods." Likewise.

ditto

• "and less successfully with red-rumps"? Which is what?

good question, I've tagged it DN for now. I will take a headache tablet before attempting to unravel the vagaries of a common name, which may not end up according with any accepted description (avicultural or taxonomic).

This name was disambiguated. @Narky Blert: how did you establishe this is what the author was referring to? cygnis insignis 07:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• "and mealy rosella" Again seems to be an alternate name for Pale-headed rosella, so why use two different common names for it here?

It is an accepted name in aviculture, as far as I can tell. Would it be too cute to flip the question, should I submit to a Royal society's determination on this?

Now it is a source of inconsistency and confusion, so something should be done. FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• "for detection of Chlamydophila psittaci" State this is a bacteria.

done

• To be honest, I'm not sure why the Chlamydophila paragrapgh is relevant here at all. One captive specimen was infected in a study, then what? Why is that relevant to the species or its status as a captive bird?

Scary enough for parrot populations, but also this?

• "by the master illustrator and poet" This level of detail should be kept in the article bodu, not the intro.

removed

• "which purports or adopts the subspecific description, P. icterotis xanthogenys (Salvadori)" Very convoluted writing, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It was thought to belong to that species? Then just say "thought to be P. icterotis xanthogenys.

Some think it is that subspecies, some dispute that and think it is a variant in captivity. I agree it is convoluted and will see about having that copyedited (if explaining the circumstance here has not helped me to do that myself).

• "They are more placid and sociable than rosellas of other Australian regions" in the intro is not entirely with congruent with "the Western species is not reputed to be aggressive, although other behaviours are similar" of the article body. Should be consolidated.

Fixed?

• "distinguishes it from others of the genus Platycercus" Other species, for clarity.

There is a lot of awkwardness when I refer to the genus because the arrangement used here is not the one used by the sources. Others don't share my hesitancy to refer to current taxonomy as near absolute assertions, especially the extrapolation rosella = Platycercus, and I expected that to be swept away before now.

• I think the conversions could be added back, there was not really anything wrong with them, and they are standard in promoted bird articles. And againm just use conversion templates, that is easy and will make it consistent too.

I find them a bit noisy and have some concerns with conversion, I'll have a look around and see if there is anything I should worry about. The article contains some fine measurements, "gave a range of 23.5–27.7 × 19.9–22.5 mm", and I assume some similar situations brought resistance to use in 'scientific articles' (excepting those you mention). If I'm worrying about nothing I will apply the template throughout, although I will remain sceptical that a US reader is unfamiliar with the SI system or having a ready method to convert it themselves. The question I will asking myself is: is there really a need to introduce a template, does the benefit outweigh the disadvantage? Cheers, cygnis insignis 05:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Having now read the subspecies section, it would appear that the text that applies to both subspecies should be merged into the general description paragraphs, and if a subspecies section is kept, it should strictly explain the differences between the two subspecies. Now it is a bit of a mess, which seems to repeat much of what is already said in the description section, just with more words, while not making it clear which of the listed features are shared between the subspecies.

I removed the section, returning it to the previous state. Is that a satisfactory solution? cygnis insignis 11:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, you could also do what I outlined above. That is, if the subspecies description contains usable info that applies to both species, merge that into the general description, and then leave a paragraph for just the differences about the two subspecies. All of which could be done much more concisely than the former subspecies section. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The treatment I used was as two subspecies, that is, two separate and expansive descriptions in a standard text for the region. The usual approach seems to be to pretend they don't exist, those treatments, lump it and make some hand waving reference to the taxa. Merging and selecting is to decide what is an important distinction or "usable", and I don't think that is our business. Is this not a satisfactory solution? cygnis insignis 12:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Usually, there are sources that do that for us. And if a description of one subspecies is nearly identical to the description of the species as a whole, what do we gain from listing the same features twice? If anything, the species description should be more detailed than the subspecies description. I am having a similar issue at echo parakeet now, which involves two subspecies. One is extinct, though, so I basically just describe the living subspecies, and then explain how the extinct subspecies differed from this in a new paragraph. There would be no point in reiterating all their shared features again in a detailed description of the extinct subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk, I realise there is no simple solution, but I'm following the source. Which subspecies is described and which is distinguished in this case, the one closer to extinction? My approach, if this albatross was not hanging from mainstay, would be to summarise each concept and detail what the source thought appropriate to do so in a deeper section that readers can use or ignore.

A general comment as this review has already become digressive into our approach to content, not unhappily for me and I hope for you. As it is I meet with what appears to be resistance from you, Cas and others at the very mention of a subspecific concept, and what I would emphasise is that taxa in this state (specifically the SWAust hotspot) is very poorly documented. Even a description without a binomial is often crucially important and accepted, can gain a conservation status, the systematics are detailing taxa that are known to be indeterminate and workers can only continue to scratch the surface. I am aware of the merit of lumping where details are few, but see many articles that effectively lock up taxa with muddy statements as assertions that skirt the actual and factual and splitting that out is also met with resistance. I am not comfortable with omitting that the circumscription of platyercines is contentious, in our recent FA one crucial source maintains Platycercus spurius as the binomial because the group is certain to be rearranged and separating the isolated population was more a matter of convenience while the species complexes of the rest of the continent were being wrangled. They are not genetically isolated, and individuals in two separate genera can breed successfully. I hope this gives some hints to my outlook on this. My suggestion is to pretend you never saw what is down below, as others do when they select facts from standard texts on aves that are much more repetitive than I have been. cygnis insignis 16:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't say I have any resistance against mentioning a subspecific concept, we just need to be clear when we are talking about which subspecies. One issue that may be confusing is when something is written as a feature of one subspecies, when it likely applies to the entire species. You of course can't be more specific than the sources are, but where possible, such info should be consolidated. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think the text is pretty good now, the image stuff can be fixed later. But of course before potential FAC, and I would also advise to get a copy edit done before that. Passed! FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  FunkMonk, okay, cheers. I would have been fine to wait, but I am happily in position again to pursue those photographers. This is has been very helpful mate, some candid comments and enquiries to make me think again about the content. cygnis insignis 14:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I have also been extra nitpicky in places because there were hints this was going to FAC later, but there comes a time where such demands exceed the GA criteria, and that shouldn't hold an article from passing. I'm sure you and Cas can work it out in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk, and it should simplify matters for copy editors and FAC, you definitely deserve a credit for your efforts. cygnis insignis 15:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)