Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pitta/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 February 2019 [1].

Pitta

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:BIRD nomination (not WP:BREAD - does that exist?) this one of a lovely and hard to see bird family found mostly in Asia and Africa (and a bit of Oz). Has an astonishing 6 featured images! Have at it! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...Yes; re: those featured images, may I gently draw your attention to MOS:SANDWICH...?  ;) Good luck with this though. ——SerialNumber54129 21:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two places where that might crop up, I've moved them further apart. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aa77zz

[edit]

Taxonomy and systematics

  • Need to expand the history between 1816 and 2006. Strike my comment as not correct.
  • "Pittas were first described scientifically by Carl Linnaeus in 1766 in his revised 12th edition of the Systema Naturae." This is misleading as Linnaeus described the Indian pitta - not pittas in general and he wasn't the first to describe the Indian pitta - he relied on earlier descriptions which he cites. For the Indian pitta these were Edwards, Ray, Albin and Brisson. Linnaeus's contribution was to introduce the binomial name Corvus brachyura. This article should at least cite Linnaeus and Vieillot:
    • Linnaeus, Carl (1766). Systema naturae : per regna tria natura, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis (in Latin). Vol. Volume 1, Part 1 (12th ed.). Holmiae (Stockholm): Laurentii Salvii. p. 158. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
    • Vieillot, Louis Jean Pierre (1816). Analyse d'une Nouvelle Ornithologie Elementaire (in French). Paris: Deterville/self. p. 42, Num. 137.
  • Who first established the family Pittidae? The Taxobox credits Swainson 1831 but this is an error by Bock.
  • So it should be Vieillot?

-Aa77zz (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the etymology of the word "pitta", the article cites Whistler and Jobling's key. Whistler gives "small bird" but Jobling gives "pretty", "bauble" or "pet". Jobling gives the same on page 308 of his book. _ Aa77zz (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main meaning in Telugu is undoubtedly bird. I do not know what Telugu dictionary or authority Jobling consulted - maybe there is a secondary meaning (somewhat like "birdie") but in this context, it is almost certainly not the correct one. I left the Jobling reference as it is correct in identifying the source language. The first use of the Telugu name was in John Ray's synopsis (p.195) where it is transcribed as "Ponnunky pitta" (which would be పొనంగిపిట్) - a citation for that could be Alfred Newton's dictionary - https://archive.org/details/adictionarybird00shufgoog/page/n159 - John Ray has a crude illustration of the bird on File:Madras_Birds.jpg - Figure 10 (bird 12 in Ray's list). The original watercolour (in the British Library) made by an Indian artist is a mirror image. Shyamal (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Jobling reference then. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider indicating in the lead how many species are recognised in the family (currently 42 or around 40)
  • Done.
  • In the list of species Siao pitta should be Siau pitta (the name of the island)
  • Fixed
  • The list of species should cite a source (the IOC web site):

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having another look. Although most looks good, I'm still not happy with the taxonomy:

lead

  • "and while initially been placed in a single genus" extra "been"?
  • Fixed

Taxonomy and systematics

  • "In 1816 it Louis Vieillot made" - extra "it"
Fixed
  • "In 1816 it Louis Vieillot made it the type species of the new genus Pitta." This is incorrect. Vieillot did not specify a type. The type was subsequently designated by Gray in 1855 (see the Pitta (genus) article and refs therein).
  • Reworded
  • "Vieillot was also the first to consider the pittas as a family in their own right.[8]" HBW indeed has: "As long ago as 1816, L. J. P. Vieillot had been the first person to use the generic name Pitta for the whole family..." Looking at Vieillot's book he used Pitta for the genus but he also clearly defines families - the genus number 137 Pitta is in Famille 20 - Chanteurs - Canori p.41. (According to Bock p.263, Vieillot's family names are not accepted by the ICZN as they are "not based on the name of a type genus.") Claiming that Vieillot considered Pitta a family is misleading.
  • Removed.
  • "Modern treatments of taxa within the family vary as well. A 1975 " Is 1975 modern - 44 yrs ago?
  • " adopted by the IUCN" - correct - but actually the IUCN now just follow HBW alive.
  • Clarified
  • "A 2006 study of the nuclear DNA of the pittas, using study skins from museums," but not just skins - footpads were used for only 18 out of the 42 species sampled.

I'll read on further tomorrow. - Aa77zz (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - changes look good - well done. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

A fabulous group of birds, I'm disappointed that I've only seen Indian and Rainbow. I'm pleased you mentioned Goode's excellent book. A few minor quibbles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • He placed the Indian pitta in the crow family and genus Corvus. Ten years later it was placed in the thrush family, due to similarities of morphology and behaviour, before being placed in its own genus, — three "placed"s
  • Changed when I rewrote the begining
  • The checklists of Sclater and Elliot at the end of the 19th century contained 48 and 47 species each. —"respectively", I think
  • Fixed
  • One species not recognised by the Handbook—I think Handbook should either be italicised or lower case
  • Fixed.
  • stout bodied—hyphen
  • Done
  • In general however the sexes '—I'd lose the "however", but if you keep it it should be between commas

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I'll review soon, but first, I'd think all higher level taxon articles should have cladograms. A good deal of higher taxon articles go into the relationships within a group, and the group's relationship with other groups, so though some people might not like them due to taking up much space, cladograms are essential for making such understandable. If you know of a recent stable cladogram, you can request the code at: WP:TREEREQ FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They don't really have to take up much space (you can determine the text size), and you can format them in various ways. They can also be aligned the way you want, in for example Archelon, it is left aligned and framed, and creates space for more images on the right. Coupled with the fact that they're the best way to show interrelationships, I'll say that I love them, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per below, cladograms have been requested and now provided courtesy of Loopy30. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The cladograms look great, and certainly help the article. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looking very good and non-intrusive, I'll continue the review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a good deal of duplinks, this script can highlight them:[2]
  • "The first pitta to be described scientifically was the Indian pitta" Give the scientific name then.
  • I had it, removed it per Josh's comment below,
Hmm, I see he first recommended adding more. In this case, the very first sentence, it seems like you are leaving out information that is pretty crucial for understanding the sentence. You are talking about the type species of the family, so it is more important than any other binomial elsewhere in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went with not including them across the board to make it cleaner to read. I personally think it's possible to acknowledge the importance of binomials without overusing them in an article for generalist readers. In this instance I'm not convinced its important, but I need to go so will come back to address this after thinking. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping J Milburn to see if he agrees this warrants an exception. It is pretty important to be clear and unambiguous about the taxonomic origins of the group. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken; how about something like: "...was the Indian pitta, which was given the binomial [whatever]". Josh Milburn (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can add it, but which binomial and where? The point in the text that goes "...was the Indian pitta" - it wasn't given the binomial it has now or even given a binomial at all. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, if Linnaeus named it, it would be the sentence "placing it with the Corvidae in the genus Corvus". I would say something like "placing it in the family Corvidae, as Corvus brachyurus. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "placing it with the Corvidae as genus Corvus" In genus might be more fitting. Now it could read as if it was thought to be the genus Corvus to people who don't know it what the genus contains. Or better yet, give the full, recombined binomial.
  • Wording changed
  • "Ten years later it was moved to the thrush family Turdidae" under what name?
  • "This type was later assigned to a new genus Pitta" It became the type species, it wasn't before, so should be rewritten accordingly.
  • Done
  • "Vieillot was also the first to consider the pittas a family in their own right" What other species did he include at that time? You can also give a number, which you now only do much later.
  • Neither of the books I'm using say.
  • "The family's closest relatives have for a long time assumed to be the other suboscine birds (suborder Tyranni), and particularly the Old World suboscines" A bit vague, since when, proposed by who?
  • "The family's closest relatives have for a long time assumed to be the" Seems a "been" is missing.
  • Fixed
  • "and his team from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro" Why do we need all this detail? Other recent studies you mention don't even mention lead author in text, here you present the whole team...
  • I was trying to just liven up a succession of studies. Removed
  • "and spread through into Asia" Did you mean to say either through or into?
  • Fixed
  • It is quite inconsistent whether you state the title of a publication in-text or not.
  • I am. I throw it in where I think it's important or, well, just because. Or I leave it out cause digging it up would take a ton of research.
  • "and Brachyurus for the shorter-tailed species" What is this today? The rest of the article doesn't mention the genus, and it has no article.
  • It's one of a long line of abandoned genera, mentioned to make the text more than "Bob has seven genera, but Sally only three". Is it important to elaborate?
Not necessarily (though I would specify that genus is now abandoned), just wonder what we can redirect it to. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indicated it is abandoned, struggling to work out where it should redirect to. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family was not well studied using modern anatomical or phylogenetic techniques" This comes after summaries of what seems to be very extensive genetic studies in the "modern age", so it is unclear what you mean here. I guess you could be clearer than just "Modern treatments vary as well." And say something like "Modern treatments of taxa within the family vary as well."
  • I think it's a leftover from when there were much fewer studies. I liked your suggested wording and have adopted it
  • Reading the taxonomy section makes a cladogram even more of a requirement, because you don't name any of the species you discuss in the paragraph about interrelationships. For example sentences like this seem like a tease: "they are all generally small species with small tails, extensive amounts of crimson or red on the underparts, and greenish or blueish backs."
  • "with one listing just 24 species" Give date, which you do with the other examples.
  • Done
  • One thing that should be a must in higher taxon articles, what defines a pitta to the exclusion of other birds? Is it the combination of features listed in the description? r are there overlooked osteological features? If sop, they should be briefly discussed.
  • There are some assemblages of combinations mentioned in the Erritzoe. I'm in two minds about including them. Isn't it rather old fashioned in an area where genetics is the final word on whether something is or isn't a particular taxon? I'd be interested in other opinions as well as your own. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Genetic studies are usually guided by morphological work that has come before (even though it might sometimes overturn it). In the case of pittas, it doesn't seem like the traditional classification of the group among other birds has changed overall, so they must have had a pretty solid morphological definition. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the description of morphological characteristics of the family, I'm deeply unimpressed. Almost every statement is highly qualified; Most spp. with bright contrasted colouration, Some spp., etc etc, and my personal favourite sexes alike or unalike! So there really isn't anything that says "this is a pitta and nothing else". Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the northern subspecies of the hooded pitta (cucullata)" Seems inconsistent to name a subspecies when you insist on not naming species.
  • Subspecies don't have common names though. I can just remove it if you think that's better.
Some subspecies do (including many of those that were once considered full species), but of course might not in this case, and I'd just leave it out for consistency. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • In the footnote, everyone gets full names, except Swainson for some reason. Also, Bonaparte gets the full presentation (French naturalist) the others don't.
  • Changed.
  • " size from 3000 m² in the African pitta to 10,000 m² " Since you convert other measurements, theawe should be too.
  • Done.
  • "although fights between rivals have only been recorded once" Is this the incident mentioned just before as "attacking other species and even their own, although such behaviour has not been observed in the wild"? Otherwise seems contradictory.
  • No, they seem to be more aggressive in captivity.
  • "although a few species created a "doormat"" Why past tense?
  • typo, fixed
  • "The eggs of pittas are ovoid" Most readers probably don't know what this means.
  • "name jewel-thrushes" Why italics? And shouldn't it be listed as a common name in the intro?
  • It's more a colloquial name than a common alternate name, so I've de-italisised and clarified.
  • "subject of the book The Jewel Hunter" Give date?
  • Done
  • "On hatching the parents of at least two species" Why not give the names?
  • Weirdly the sources only list one so I named it, not sure where the two came from.
  • The two species found in Africa" Likewise, when only two species are mentioned, it isn't excessive to name them. Leaving them out just makes such sentences less informative.
  • Done
  • "which is responsible for a number of extinctions across the Pacific" Specify if this is extinctions of species other than pittas.
  • Clarified
  • "similar in general structure" Seems a weird way of describing a bird, how about "appearance"?
  • I'd quibble that its fine for what I meant but appearance works too, changed
  • "and have often been placed in a single genus" Often or just initially? The taxonomy section doesn't really explain this either.
  • Initially worked better
  • "although, as of 2009, they are now" Is "now" needed?
  • fixed
  • "a large spherical nest" You don't describe it as such in the article body, best to be consistent.
  • Done
  • Species names should be linked in image captions.

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Annoyingly it's the only nesting photo I've seen. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
  • "Within the Eurylaimides another 2006 study placed the pittas as a sister clade to two clades of broadbills and asities." This doesn't really work - the study wasn't/isn't "within the Eurylaimides".
  • clarified.
  • "oon afterwards, Philip Sclater's Catalogue of the Birds of the British Museum brought the number back down to three." Reference?
  • Broke into a paragraph without fixing refs, refed now
  • Could I recommend including specific names at first mention of a species in-text? I note a few in the last paragraph of taxonomy section. Or if you're not doing this, could I recommend not doing it consistently?
  • Not doing it as a rule, removed an instance of doing it
  • "although authorities like the IOC have recognised only 10.[15]" Authorities like the IOC, or simply the IOC?
Good catch, made more explicit till I check other authorities
  • "This varies in the fairy pitta across its range, it can be found up to 1,300 m (4,300 ft) in Taiwan but stays at lower altitudes in Japan." It's unclear what the this refers to, and this looks like a comma splice!
  • Clarified

I read up to the start of "Behaviour and ecology", editing as I went - please double-check. The species list strikes me as a little bare. I've seen it done before with common name, specific name, authority, range, and picture - that might be worth considering? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, hopefully addressed. I'm not keen on expanding the list as described - although it might work if split out. We certainly don't have enough images of all the species, especially the new species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which holds its legs straight and bows to a rival on the edge of territory," Is there a missing word, here?
  • It took me a strangely long time to work out what it was, but you're right. Fixed.
  • "a study which found that they have the largest olfactory bulb of 25 passerines examined" Presumably, this was a study looking at a particular species of pitta, rather than pittas generally?
  • Clarified
  • "some, such as the rainbow pitta, use the root of a tree to do so" Does your reference state that some including the rainbow pitta do this, or simply that the rainbow pitta does this?
  • Clarified
  • "although a few species created a "doormat" of sticks (sometimes decorated with mammal dung)[32] by the entrance" If that ref is for the whole sentence, could you move it to the end? If it's just for the mammal dung bit, perhaps it should be inside the brackets?
  • Done
  • "There are 42 species of pitta in three genera according to the International Ornithological Congress' (IOC) Birds of the World: Recommended English Names.Gill, Frank; Donsker, David, eds. (2019). "NZ wrens, broadbills, pittas". World Bird List Version 8.2. International Ornithologists' Union. Retrieved 12 January 2019." ?
  • Is the Handbook of the Birds of the World literally a book? You're a little inconsistent in how you cite it. I'd suggest citing it as an edited collection.

I did some more copyediting. I've really enjoyed reading this article. I commend you for the work you've put into it! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

Looks good and on target for FA star....a few quibbles...

  • It would be good to have some explanation about why the 2015-16 studies came up with a different tree to the 2006 study (and why they are seen as more correct) - and were the studies morphological, molecular...etc.
  • Let me elaborate on that - why the studies came to a different conclusion, I can't say. I don't say that they are more correct, merely that they disagree with the earlier study and corroborate each other. I have indicated that they are both DNA studies now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atypically for forest-floor species,... - a little bit jargony...I might say, "Unlike most forest floor species,.." 0r "Unusually for forest-floor species,..."
  • Done
  • Earthworms form the major part of the diet of pittas, followed by snails in order of importance. - last 4 words redundant here

Coord note

[edit]

Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but formatting seems OK to me. Without spotchecking, are Emu, World Bird List Version 8.2. and Forktail reliable sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:36, 12 February 2019 (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/Pitta/archive1&oldid=883843806"