Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Snoring rail/archive1

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 05:11, 16 July 2014 [1].

Snoring rail

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The snoring rail is even more elusive than the invisible rail, so this is a short article because so little is known about it. Gerd Heinrich puts in another appearance though, so that's something to look forward to! Thanks to Crisco for sleeking the plumage before I brought the bird here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Aramidopsis plateni 1898.jpg - Fine

File:Aramidopsisplatenimap.png - Source for your data doesn't appear to be working

I've replaced the template with a simple link, now seems OK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and images. Well written short article. I'll AGF on comprehensiveness, as I am sadly unfamiliar with birding. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit, I was lulled into "the Celebes" by the plural-like spelling, so it's stupidity rather than BE (: Thanks for support and you earlier help, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

Taxonomy "It is now considered to be more similar to the Inaccessible Island and white-throated rails than to members of the Rallus genus." but the cladogram in this paper

Kirchman, JJ (2012). "Speciation of flightless rails on islands: A DNA-based phylogeny of the typical rails of the pacific". Auk. 129: 56–69. doi:10.1525/auk.2011.11096.

based on sequencing 3 mitochondrial genes suggests that the closest relatives are Lewin's rail (Gallirallus pectoralis/Lewinia pectoralis) and the Slaty-breasted rail (Gallirallus striatus) Aa77zz (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd missed that paper, thanks for that, text updated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more points

"other than a report of an adult seen feeding with two chicks in August 1983,[4] but the original report gives no details of the claimed sighting.[17]" This is very confusing. Footnote 12 (Birdbase) also contains "A bird was observed with two chicks in August 1983 (Andrew and Holmes 1990)." This looks as if one author copied from another without going back to the primary source. (Please could you email Andrew and Holmes 1990 to me). If Andrew and Holmes don't mention the sighting, then perhaps the wiki article shouldn't either.

I'll send you the article, but the relevant text says C: At c. 08.00 hrs on 18 Aug 1983, one observed with two chicks foraging in lightly disturbed hill forest bordering dense regrowth near Sidaunta on the western boundary of T.N. Lore Lindu, appears to be the first record of breeding of this elusive species (KDB) (see also Lambert, 1989). That's it. No published description to confirm the identity, no description of the chicks, no comment on the record (Lambert 1989 isn't relevant, just his description of calls and sightings of adults Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I misunderstood "but the original report gives no details of the claimed sighting" - I wrongly assumed that the authors had not mentioned the sighting - while in fact they just didn't give "details", as the text correctly states. Looking at your text now, I can't see why I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Aa77zz (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"estimated population of 3,500–15,000 individuals" I'm amazed that it possible to estimate the population when there have been so few sightings. I had naively assumed that population estimates were based on actual data. I don't think this estimate can be considered reliable. Aa77zz (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the "full account" tab, the IUCN give their rationale there. The IUCN Red List is a reputable source for conservation matters, and however suspect their estimate might be, I can't not quote it. Similarly, it would be OR for me to criticise the estimate, and I wouldn't know where to look for a better figure. These flightless rails are incredibly difficult to see, and the islands lack the scientific and physical infrastructure needed for an accurate census. Even European volant species like Corn Crake and Spotted Crake are estimated on calling birds, not sight observations. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that you need to quote the IUCN Red List and that (unfortunately) it would be OR to criticise. Although it is easy to believe that the species is threatened, with so few sightings, the numbers are obviously suspect. Aa77zz (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article fulfills all the criteria. For your next FAC how about a bird that I'm likely to be able to see.I've been watching a pair of Gobemouche gris (Spotted flycatchers) that have conveniently chosen to build a nest against the wall of a house next to the dining table on the terrace. (gris seems more appropriate than spotted) Aa77zz (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support. I'm planning to do Gerd Heinrich as a long-term aim, probably won't be until the autumn once we have recovered from moving. No reason not to do a bird in tandem though. Shall I take spotted fly as a request, or do you have a preferred UK species? And yes, even the young aren't that spotty Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone

great article, almost there.
In the Description section, it states "Immature and juvenile plumages are undescribed." In Behaviour it says "Rail chicks are typically precocial, downy and black,[16] but the original report gives no details of the claimed sighting". I find these three sentences hard to reconcile. If we know the chicks are downy and black, is that a reference only to rails in general rather than those seen in 1983? If so, it is slightly confusing to have the general sentence provided in this context - it made this reader think it was about those chicks seen in 1983.

Point taken, I've removed the general comment that chicks are usually black and downy, and left just what we actually know about this species — nothing! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing: there seem to be some books cited in Harvard style, but other books fully cited in the references. Can this be checked for consistency? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually very careful on this, but I appear to have completely failed to follow my normal procedure. All print books are now short-form, with journals and web pages in full, my standard FA practice

Thanks for reviewing, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Support. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth

As you say, a short article on a little known species. A couple of points struck me:

"The difficulty of its habitat and sparse distribution means that little is known about this species." - I don't really think you can have a difficult habitat.

I'm not totally convinced, but changed to stress inaccessibility anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The rail is trapped for food, and killed by dogs, cats and other introduced predators." - This is more of a criticism of your source than the article, but since the species is so rarely seen, it seems a bold assertion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about the extent of these myself, particularly as the rail seems to be increasingly rare. I've past-tensed the hunting and made the predation less assertive (although I suspect that dogs and cats are much better at finding their dinner than humans) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review and comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. Now supporting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

van Berlo or van Perlo? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, both Perlo now, thanks for looking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.