Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Great cuckoo-dove/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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 19 May 2024 [1].

Great cuckoo-dove

[edit]
Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've nominated at FAC and I am still procrastinating on toco toucan, so we have this pigeon instead. It's somewhat better studied than most island species, but still pretty poorly-known; as always, the article covers pretty much everything ever written about the bird and is probably the most comprehensive resource on or off the web. AryKun (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • More birds are always welcome! I ran the "expand citations" tool, which only seems to have removed two source links, which I guess were already accessible from their DOIs, just so you know. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some context for the illustration, the caption was pretty bare bones, and added a higher res version.
  • No cladograms?
    • No cladograms of Reinwardtoena that I could find, just one or two that include one species from the genus as an outgroup that aren't particularly useful for the species page.
And its position is not just because it's basal to the rest, which would be interesting to show? FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really get what's supposed to mean. AryKun (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do these sources specifically that this species is used as an outgroup, or is it just basal to the other groups shown in the cladograms? FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give subspecies for some for the image captions, but can't it be established for the rest? I see the remaining photos have coordinates showing where they were taken, could indicate subspecies?
    • Added ssp for photo of juvenile, didn't add it for the last photo because I don't think it's relevant.
Is it the same subspecies as that in the taxobox? I think it's relevant for comparative purposes, especially since you list it for all the other photos. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, same ssp, added in the caption now. AryKun (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could give location for photo captions, if that is relevant?
    • I only added the island for the juvenile photo because otherwise the caption sounds a bit brusque, I don't think it's necessary everywhere.
  • Perhaps rename "Status" to "Conservation status", for clarity?
    • Tweaked
  • Redirect all synonyms here.
    • Done.
  • Thanks, see responses above. AryKun (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the basis of a specimen from Ambon Island" Specify this is in Indonesia.
    • Done.
  • I think it would make sense to mention the etymology of the species name already when the naming is first mentioned in the first paragraogh, the reader has noidea you'll return to this latr,and I was puzzledatleast,as that's where you'd look for this information. Then when you mention the genus, you can just say something like "the generic name also referenced Reinwardt" or similar.
    • Most of our bird articles tend to follow the rough order of nomenclatural history→etymology→taxonomic relationships, which is what's followed here.
Hmmm, I'm not sure those are necessarily comparable, because most other recent bird FAs have not been about type species of a genus or monotypic genera. But not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link subspecies.
Seems to have been done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "t is very similar in appearance to the pied cuckoo-dove" Perhaps give its binomial in parenthesis here, considering the possible relation?
    • Done.
  • "The upper back, back" Reads a bit oddly, perhaps second back should be "rest of the back"?
    • Changed "upper back" to mantle.
  • "Its population has not been estimated" Could add "size" after population for clarity.
    • Done.
  • "per square kilometre" Could give a conversion.
    • Discussed in the GA review; this isn't the result of some survey or anything, just a rough estimate. Converting to sq mi gives a decimal that gives a sense of false precision, so I'm against it.
Hmmm, but this is not about giving a precise estimate, but to give readers unfamiliar with the metric system at least some idea of the area. The fact that it has now been brought up twice indicates that it's an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a solution; any conversion makes the number seem excessively precise. I also think that familiarity doesn't matter because most people don't have a good handle on how big large areas are anyway, I couldn't tell you big a square kilometer or a square mile is if you asked me to mark it out.
A lot more people would know if there was some indication, though. But let's see if more reviewers bring it up; if they do, it's probably time to do something about it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "preferring plants in the Araliaceae" Add "family" for clarity.
    • Done.
  • "Its typical courtship display consists of a deeply undulating flight, with the bird flying sharply upwards, spreading its wings and tail or clapping its wings together at the top of the flight, and descending sharply. Another reported display involves the bird flying up obliquely from a perch and then returning after flying in a wide circle, similar to the displays performed by Macropygia cuckoo-doves." Is this done by one sex, or do both do it? Quite unclear now.
    • None of the sources say anything about the sex of the bird doing the display.
  • The Distribution and habitat section could specify what countries the listed areas are located in.
    • Added for the Moluccas, left out for New Guinea because I think it's well-known enough to not need it.
  • "Fledglings begin picking food by" What is meant by "picking food"? Could just say "foraging" for clarity, now it reads as if they "choose" food.
    • Source says "pick on food items". Changed to foraging.
  • "sometimes joining flocks of other frugivores" Could specify these are birds, as you do in the intro.
    • Done.
  • "It is known to defend fruiting shrubs it is feeding on, an uncommon foraging behaviour among frugivorous birds" I don't think the last" frugivorous" is needed, as this is implied by the start of the sentence.
    • Removed.

Jens

[edit]
  • Known parasites of the species include the feather louse Columbicola taschenbergi[16] and Coloceras museihalense. – Since "louse" is singular but two species are mentioned, does this mean that the second is not a louse?
    • The second also is, but we don't have an article on its family, so I miss dit. Now tweaked.
  • Add legend to the range map.
    • Done.
  • R. r. griseotincta Hartert, EJO – We do not provide author initials in species names, or do we? Same for one other subspecies.
    • Just following the IOC; there's one other Hartert who authored three ssp and synonyms, so they added initials for clarity on the more famous Hartert.
  • Looks very comprehensive. More soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the description, you seem to describe bill colour of hatchlings only, but what is the bill colour of adults?
    • I managed to structure this exceptionally poorly; the bill's color is talked about after juvenile plumage, I don't know why I did that. I've moved all the bare parts descriptions together now.
  • I also wonder about structure in that section. The first paragraph is plumage followed by colour of feet; the second paragraph is plumage (again) followed by colour of face and iris. Maybe it makes sense to discuss the bare parts and plumage separately?
    • Done.
  • Its population size has not been estimated, but it is thought to be generally uncommon throughout its range, although it can be locally common in hilly and mountainous areas. – Here, the "although" somehow bites the "but" (both are referring to the first third of the sentence, but it seems the "although" refers to the second part starting with "but"). Maybe re-formulate as "Its population size has not been estimated; although it is thought to be generally uncommon throughout its range, it can be locally common in hilly and mountainous areas.". But there are many ways to write this.
    • Replaced with your wording.
  • The link to this FAC somehow disappeared from the article talk page?
    • The bot removed it for some reason, I've added it back.
  • Very sorry for the delay. This is everything I have (I also did the GA review, where my comments have already been addressed). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images are free (various CC licenses). The sounds linked to are CC, but NC and/or ND, so can't be hosted on Commons; using an external link in a template for them is fine. Suggest to use "upright" for the portrait format images (why should they be so much larger than the landscape ones?) ALT text has been provided. —Kusma (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, I've altered the image sizes for portrait photos to make them smaller. AryKun (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Image review is passed. —Kusma (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grungaloo

[edit]

Marking spot, will come back later once others have finished so I don't retread anything. grungaloo (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grungaloo:, FM and Gog are done with their reviews, so courtesy ping. AryKun (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grungaloo, everyone else is done with their reviews, so another ping. AryKun (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry AryKun, I won't be able to review this - I've been really busy off-wiki lately. I'll keep an eye out for future FACs from you though! grungaloo (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No issues. AryKun (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Is there no publisher location for Gibbs et al?
    • Added.
  • Any images of R r brevis?
    • Only one of iNat and it's BY-NC.
  • "The feet are pink to purplish-red in adults." It would make sense to move this to the end of the previous paragraph.
    • Done.
  • "purplish pink". Should this be hyphenated?
    • Added hyphen.
  • 'the "slender-billed cuckoo dove" '. Why the quote marks?
    • It's a species complex that was split up, as mentioned later in the sentence. I thought there should be some difference bw the complex and the "good" species mentioned otherwise.
  • "but is also found in logged forest, secondary growth, and gallery forests on Biak." Is it only found in any of those three when on Biak, or just gallery forests?
    • All three, reworded.
  • "(377–4,593 ft)" seems spuriously accurate. As does "(3.9–16.4 ft)".
    • Rounded the first to three sig figs, the latter is appropriate as the original estimate also seemed to use two sig figs.
  • "115–1,400 m (377–4,590 ft)": The source is to the nearest 5 m; your conversion is to the nearest 0.3 of a metre. This is spuriously accurate.
  • "(3.9–16.4 ft)": Your second conversion is to 3 sig figs. More importantly, the source gives an accuracy to the nearest 100 mm; your conversion is to the nearest 30 mm. This is spuriously accurate.
  • Adjusted the sigfigs; the problem seems to be that the original values don't have a consistent number, so I've changed all the conversions to the lower number; however, afaik the way you handle sigfigs during conversion isn't by calculating whether you're accurate to x quantity, it's simply retaining the same number of sigfigs that the original measurement had.
When converting a sources figures one should rtain, broadly, the sources level of precision, or one is ORing a level of precision for which their is no support.
  • " It flies under the canopy". I am reading this as it only flies when under the canopy. Is that right?
    • Not only, but generally; tweaked the wording.
  • "is rather fast". What does "rather" fast mean?
    • I'm paraphrasing "graceful, slow wing-beats but flight is deceptively fast"; tweaked it slightly to further emphasize the contrast that the source makes, but "deceptively fast" isn't really a measurement of speed either.
Delete "rather".
Done.
  • "Breeding occurs throughout the year and varies in different parts of its range." What is it that varies?
    • Season; reworded.
  • "Breeding occurs throughout the year ... On New Guinea, breeding seems to occur throughout the year"?
    • Reworded the first; it seems redundant, but I feel like both should be mentioned since breeding season is year round on both NG and its range as a whole, even though islands other than NG have a variable but not year-round breeding season. I can't really explain it well.
How you have it now seems fine to me.
  • "Nests may sometimes". "may" and "sometimes" seem redundant. Suggest "may" → 'are'.
    • Done.
  • "Young are brooded until 13 days after hatching". While "brooded" is a perfectly accurate word, it is not well known and almost certainly going to be confused with the more common usage meaning incubated.
    • I can't think of another word that has quite the same meaning; something like "cared for" would be inaccurate since parental care still occurs after brooding is over.
Ok. But perhaps add a Wikionary link.
Done.
  • "it can be locally common in hills and mountains." A picky point, but "in" a hill? Perhaps 'it can be locally common in hilly and mountainous areas'?
    • Done.
  • Elsewhere in the last paragraph, I am not convinced that "fairly" and "rather" are either encyclopedic or professional.
    • It's what the source says more or less; "Fairly common to common in hills of Seram" and "fairly common in Papua New Guinea". It's hard to make definitive statements about abundance without any quantitative estimates, so the sources use imprecise terms too.
Suggest deleting "fairly" and "rather".
Removed in one case, changed to "moderately" in another; that sounds more professional to my ears while still retaining the qualification.

That's all from me. A nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comebacks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replied inline. AryKun (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AryKun, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Is there a logic behind which source has an access date and which one doesn't? In particular, #3 and #7 aren't consistent in that regard. Have any other source here been consulted? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journal articles and books don't, web sources do. BOW is kind of an edge case, but the species accounts there are updated while retaining the same url, so I've added a date, even though the doi is technically enough to identify which edition of the species account I was citing. I've removed the date for #3. I've gone through all the sources on Google Scholar and BHL, as well any others I could locate; any that aren't cited here just don't have any new information to add. AryKun (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK then, unless a spotcheck is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2024 (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/Great_cuckoo-dove/archive1&oldid=1224706551"