Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cockatoo/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 19 December 2009 [1].

Cockatoo

[edit]
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC), Snowmanradio (talk · contribs)[reply]
Toolbox

"Who's a pretty boy then? EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!!! (best imitation of why they are challenging pets) I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it fulfils criteria of comprehensiveness and proseworthiness...alot of folks have done work on this article, members of wikiproject birds, Snowmanradio, Sabine's Sunbird, KimvdLinde, and Sasata gave it one hell of a grilling at GAN to help me shove it towards here. Have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some images need WP:ALT Text, while others need better descriptions. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 02:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have buffed up some briefer ones, and added alt text to those that were missing alt text. Let me know if there are some you think could be better worded. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (added here to keep all my comments together) I've read this through twice now, and I have no serious issues. Although I am a member of the bird project, my only edits have been a couple of corrections when this was up at GA Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I am not an expert on the subject, but I've read through the article and the prose is interesting, comprehensive, and well written. The images support the article well. I feel as if this article has everything a FA should have. DR04 (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I can't support or oppose since I wrote a decent sized chunk of the text, but I'm mostly happy with the article. My only problems are the last paragraph of distribution, which seems a bit light considering it is dealing with both habitat and movements, and the Popular culture section, which is dominated by the utterly trivial and to my mind completely irrelevant Cockatoo Ridge Wineries advertising campaign. I'd be inclined to ditch that entire bit and move the two other bits (the painting and symbol) up to the start of the section (relationship with humans). Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the cultural bit, I intended finding a few others as I did figure the Cockatoo Ridge bit takes up quite a bit of space considering what it is, however it was hard to find other citeable material on first scan. I hate removing material so will have another look as there must be other notable depictions (no footy teams that I know of though..). Comment re habitat/movements noted, will see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wineries bit really isn't about cockatoos, really. It's about puns and innuendo and Miss Australia and advertising standards in Australia and incidentally involved a cockatoo. Does it matter to an article about a bird family who the model was, what previous accomplishments she had, or anything else really? I really think it needs to go. "In Culture" sections are all fine and good for species or animals that have a great deal to say in that area (albatrosses), and if there is nothing to say then not having them is fine too (Procellariidae or antbird). If you are really struggling to find something to say about cockatoos in this section that suggests strongly you don't need this section. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, point taken. Pop culture material can be tricky to reference at times. I have been surprised that more hasn't turned up given how iconic cockatoos are, and am at a loss to explain this as it seems somewhat counterintuitive. Real life means I am on and off in patches and will give it one more shot today to minimise the section having undue weight. In short, my preference remains to add rather than subtract to balance it out and will try the former first but consider the latter if zero turns up. Give me a day or so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Just numbered links in the refs for 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83. They need titles for the links.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fixed them all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Overall it is very well-done, I'm not of the belief that Cockatiels are Cockatoos, but if you want to make that point, I'd think something needs to be said in the Aviculture section as the needs of a cockatiel are vastly different than those of a large Cockatoo, they are also a much-less demanding bird than their larger counterparts. Other than that, good job!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cockatiels are included in the cockatoo group of parrots. I have made some amendments, which goes some way to fix the aviculture. I think that black cockatoos are unusual in aviculture outside Australia, which I would like to add, but I have not found a reference. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did get a general ref that white cockies are more common than black ones in captivity, as that holds true everywhere..Also the debate about whether the cockatiel is a parrot or cockie has been finally settled pretty recently. I take your point on care and thought we had embellished it enough but we can add to highlight the difference in aviculture needs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update to Mike - I did try to emphasise it a bit more in the lead now on the differing requirements in aviculture. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I read the article and have the following comments. I also did some edits myself; I'll be happy to explain if needed, but please revert changes which make no sense at all.

Etymology
  • "The derivation has also been used for the family and generic names Cacatuidae and Cacatua respectively." - Could you cite this? This seems to be where Cacatua comes from (Vieillot only validated it).
I need to get to a library for this one, as it is frustratingly obvious but no source comes right out and spells it out...I will be at the library wednesday or friday Oz timeCasliber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a stretch of course and it is fairly obvious. Still, it might be best to cite it properly, especially as there are also other suggested derivations. Ucucha 14:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • "Phylogeny of the family Cacatuidae based on the available literature" - that's a bit too easy. Specific cites would be better.
Not quite, there's nothing in the text saying that C. haematuropygia is basal to the other Licmetis species. (The text also doesn't explicitly say that Cacatua, Calyptorhynchus, and their subgenera are monophyletic - but that's nitpicking.) Ucucha 15:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think parrot ancestors are mentioned in the modified taxonomy in such a way as to indicate monophyly of the cockatoo group. There is no mention of paraphyly or polyphyly in the text. You have found a problem with references for the Red-vented Cockatoo placement. I usually find that the full text of these sort of scientific sources are subscription only. Snowman (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are referring to there. Everything I mentioned is within the cockatoo family, so I don't see why you mention "monophyly of the cockatoo group". And the cladogram that is currently there certainly comes from somewhere, so I presume someone has the sources. Ucucha 18:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to the comment regarding monophyly and the position of the Red-vented Cockatoo in the phylogram. Snowman (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need to be afraid of including red links in the species list. (i.e., link all subspecies, or drop them all - Ucucha 13:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • "woodpeckers where their ranges overlap" - was going to ask "Don't woodpeckers occur everywhere where cockatoos occur?", but Wikipedia learns me that there are no woodpeckers in Australasia. Poor Aussies. You learn something new every FAC. So this part refers to the Philippines and parts of Indonesia? If so, it may be made more precise by saying so. (I am not up to speed with the far SE distribution on woodeckers, will look into it - just quoting the source currently)
  • "Cockatoos can be noisy and demanding pets." - OR? ;-)
References

(Resolved comments moved to talk. Ucucha 20:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC); and again. Ucucha 20:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)) That's a lot, but it's still a good article which will eventually get there. I didn't see any issues with structure or comprehensiveness, but concentrated on the text and not on the big picture, so I may add more comments when I read the article again. Ucucha 02:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My adding the range map messed up the layout (at least for me), as there is bad-looking white space next to the map and another white space at the start of the taxonomy section. Perhaps you can get a somewhat smaller picture for the lead and/or move the cladogram down a paragraph or two and strike a few of the pictures next to the species list. OK, fixed that myself to an acceptable layout, but the current lead picture may not be the best one - please check. Ucucha 22:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of bird for a taxobox image is always going to be tricky. Theoritically, the type species of the type genus is the White Cockatoo Cacatua alba, a guess at the original prototype might be a dark grey one like the Gang-gang, or earliest offshoot (Palm) or best known... Sulphur crested? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should give too much weight to the type species--at the end of the day, that's just a nomenclatural construct. The current picture may not depict the cockatoos as well as they should, but you're better qualified than me to say that. At any rate, there's a lot of good pictures to choose from.
And I just see that Sandy has promoted this - congratulations! I'd still encourage you to have a shot at resolving the above issues, though. Ucucha 23:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, will make a poll on the talk page for a picture, and Sabine's Sunbird was going to sort out a couple of issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we're getting close now - just a few more things. Ucucha 20:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowmanradio comments
  • Taxonomy: Inn the taxonomy section, I think there is confusion with the use of the term "white cockatoo" to refer to the genus Cacatua, to a broader traditional use that include other genera. I think that the terms "white cockatoo" and "black cockatoo" are too confusing to use in the introduction and could mean different things to different people - often this is not intuitive as the terms contradict actual colours and the phylogeny chart. Snowman (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, on second thoughts I agree, as the definitions differ. Will amend the body of the text a bit later too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In order to clarify their placement in the psittaciformes, I thought it necessary to clarify the nestoridae branched off first, then cacatuidae, then the other parrots. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that is correct; it is case of rephrasing the text. I think that the Nestoridae offshoot (currently the last line of a paragraph) should be incorporated into the paragraph better and possibly in chronological sequence to make it easier to read, and ovoid "splitting off before the remaining psittacines radiated across the southern hemisphere" in the paragraph being contradicted by the last line. Snowman (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an attempt at rewriting this without internal contradictions and in chronological order to make it easier to read. It might need further copy-editing. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good and nothing is jumping out as a definite improvement - I have been waylaid by RL events in the past day or so, so thanks for fixing it folks :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support except:

  • "The advertisement featured former Miss Australia Erin McNaught with a Sulphur-crested Cockatoo perched on her shoulder, beside the sexually implicit slogan "She loves a cockatoo". The advertisement received mixed reactions from the public. It was later pulled from circulation in favour of an alternative picture beside the slogan 'Who's a cheeky girl, then?'—a common expression taught to domesticated cockatoos." Spare us this, please. None of the just-quoted text is needed, nor in any way germane to our understanding of the cockatoo's cultural significance, though it may titillate a cockatoo :-) And actually, there is a more significant issue with this text in any case: the only cited ref actually does not substantiate the claimed facts that the "advertisement received mixed reactions from the public" or that "the slogan 'Who's a cheeky girl, then?' [is] a common expression taught to domesticated cockatoos". Either retain just "Cockatoos have been used frequently in advertising; a cockatoo appeared in a 'cheeky' 2008 advertising campaign for Cockatoo Ridge Wineries." or even get rid of that too. Good work otherwise :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I toned it down. Sabine's Sunbird had commented above about it too, and upon reading about it I felt it probably went into more detail than is necessary. I also sat down and thought that it might not be appropriate or necessary really for schoolkids, so I have pruned it as suggested. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note (and where is Fifelfoo?): this article needs citation cleanup. It mixes citation and citet, for some reason, a few publisher years are in italics, and I found and left several other samples. They are samples only; please check all citations for consistent use of the citet family of templates, consistent formatting of author names and distinction between publisher and author, and consistency in page nos and dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I got all the remaining citations (3 found) and italicised years, one page number range and one old format accessdate. Will continue with ref fixes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need to sign off for a while..present wrapping etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Present wrapping? What didja get me?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're waiting <tap, tap, tap> ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting... Ucucha 22:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now now..no peeking till Xmas ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cockatoo/archive1&oldid=1138457723"