Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St. Croix macaw/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2019 [1].

---

St. Croix macaw

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This is an article about an extinct macaw only known from a few bones, hence a fairly short article. The article has a chequered nomination history, and was originally brought to GA by a now retired user, who I recently asked "permission" to improve it further for FAC, which was granted. The article has been expanded and rewritten considerably from the GA version (the previous version can be seen here[2]), though some text under description (and the images there) is basically retained from the GA version. I had a lot of relevant sources lying around from writing about other extinct macaws, so I thought it was about time this one got the treatment. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• File:Saint-Croix-Macaw-Distribution.png: what's the source of the data presented in this image?

Added. All that's known is that it was found on the islands shown. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• File:Parrot_Skeleton_Lydekker_with_Saint_Croix_Macaw_bones_colored_in.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Added; though Lydekker was possibly not the artist, no artist is credited, but he is the author of the book. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

I had a look at this for GoCE and there was some interaction on the talk page, so hopefully there won't be much left to comment on.

• "were imported or native species" Optional: → 'were native or imported species'.

Makes sense, done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Its bones are intermediate in size between those of smaller and larger macaws" I know that we have already discussed this, but could you clarify how this statement, which does not, it seems to me, increase the knowledge of a reader, would not be improved by being replaced by 'Its bones are intermediate in size between those of the two main groups of extant macaws'. This does not, it seems to me, contradict the source.

How about this, which should be more specific: "Extant macaws can generally be grouped in either large or small size clusters, yet the bones of the St. Croix macaw are intermediate in size between the two". FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Spot on. Just what needs to be said.

• It doesn't seem reasonable to present the reader with "Pomarrosa phase" without definition or explanation. Even more so as the only use of it I can find in the literature - I am open to correction - is in a single paper, dealing with this extinct species. Personally I would delete it and write something in English, but as a minimum it needs explaining.

It seems to have been discussed in this thesis:[3] But since it isn't free online, and it isn't that important, I've rewritten the text so it isn't named. Now it says "found in a kitchen midden deposit which has been dated to around 300 AD." FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why the comment in Nicholls (p 263) "early reports suggest that many species still existed in large numbers at first contact" doesn't make the cut?

Doesn't really apply to this species, as it is not known from any reports, and may have died out before European contact (it is true for the Lesser Antillean macaw, tough, where it is discussed). FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• The four cites to Wiley are each to a 32 page range. This makes it difficult to check them. Would it be possible to narrow this down in each case?

Broke it up as "125–128, 230–132, 137–145, 149–151" (a style I have been told before was ok), better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

An entirely acceptable style. Still 18 pages for a single cite though. Before I dive into the text, are you quite sure that all 18 pages are needed to support each of the four statements linked to?

Yeah, the thing is, much of the text here summarises several pages in few words within single sentences. For example, the following sentences cover ground that the paper takes many pages to cover in detail: "All the endemic Caribbean macaws were likely driven to extinction by humans (both in prehistoric and historic times), though hurricanes and disease may also have contributed. Native Caribbeans hunted macaws and held them captive for later use as food, but also as pets". That alone covers several chapters where the source examines each of these issues. FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Native Caribbeans hunted parrots and held them captive" Why refer to parrots when the same source refers to Native Caribbeans hunting and capturing macaws? (pp 137-138)

Changed, macaws are parrots, but I see your point. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies; trying to be too succinct. Makes a little more sense for your "typical" reader now, I think.

Some quick first thoughts. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, should now be answered. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry that it took me so long to come back to you on this. A couple of comments above. Having just read through for probably the fifth time I can't find any additional quibbles. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm used to waiting for months with articles like this, so that certainly didn't seem long. And thanks for the coming source review! FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Happy to offer some comments. If it's of any interest, I have a biology FAC seeking reviewers at the moment. Don't feel obliged to join in, though.

Thanks, didn't know there was another biology article up, I just took on Crusades, which is a bit of a whopper, so Ill try to have a look when I'm done with that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Condyle" is undefined/unlinked jargon

Was linked and explained at the last mention of the word for some reason, now moved to first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Disambiguation needed for "trochlea".

No article for this particular kind, so removed link and added "(a grooved structure where bones join)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• "while the more robust shaft of the femur is consistent with the condition in Ara but dissimilar to Anodorhynchus." You've lost me, sorry. Condition?

Changed to "is similar to that of Ara". FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• "and the attachment of [pronator brevis (one of the two pronation muscles in the wing) on the humerus is placed farther upwards." What's going on with the brackets?

Was a partly removed duplink, now removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I appreciate that we have no idea of the colour, but do we have an indication of the total size?

Isn't stated specifically in any of the sources, unfortunately. We can of course extrapolate from the sizes of the other species it was said to be close to in certain measurements, but that would be OR here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That's what jumps out at me. Please double-check my edits. Tough topic! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Added some replies, tough topic, but luckily very few historical sources to worry about (compared to other extinct birds). FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, seems we forgot a verdict on this one, J Milburn! FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Support. On a second read, this article looks good. It's a tough topic, but you've done a decent job of bringing things together and making it relatively accessible. The only thing I thought was that Category:Species made extinct by human activities might be worth adding. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, added! FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review - pass

I have ended up looking so deeply into the cites and sources that there will be very little extra needed for the full source review. So I will do it formally once I have completed my review above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

See initial comments in my "normal" review above.

• The titles of cites 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13 and 14 should be in tiytle case.

You mean capitalised titles? Isn't that only for books (from my past FAC experience)? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, rereading the MoS I can see how it could be interpreted that way. (It probably needs clarifying.) Fair enough.

• As mentioned above, I have serious qualms regarding the large page ranges in many of the cites. I do understand that on occasion this may be necessary. However, looking at specifics:

1. Cite 5: Olson is used to source "In 1983, he indicated that if the macaw had indeed been transported, the specific name would be a misnomer." This is supported by "Given the fact that there was a lively trade in macaws between Indians in tropical Mexico and those in the desert southwest, it seems probable that trade in macaws would have been carried on in the West Indies as well, so that Ara autocthones may well not have been autochthonous to St. Croix at all." in the source. I fail to see why more than the single page which this is on is cited.

Furthermore, seems I haven't even given a page range for it, so either way it needs fixing... I'll just await your response to my comment below to see what to add. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

1. "All the endemic Caribbean macaws were likely driven to extinction by humans (both in prehistoric and historic times), though hurricanes and disease may also have contributed. Native Caribbeans hunted macaws and held them captive for later use as food, but also as pets. Since they are known from kitchen midden deposits, the macaws from Puerto Rico and St. Croix were evidently also used for subsistence. " has "Native Caribbeans hunted macaws and held them captive for later use as food, but also as pets" supported by Nicols - fine. You offer 18 pages(!) of Wiley & Kirwan to cover the other two sentences. On the last two of these is "Extinction of West Indian macaws.— ... the combination of environmental changes and human-related pressures most certainly sealed the fate of all Antillean macaws. Killing of adult macaws for subsistence or to protect crops probably had a substantial effect. Killing of adult macaws for subsistence or to protect crops probably had a substantial effect; although such persecution had been underway for some two millennia, the arrival of Europeans with their advanced guns must have vastly increased the efficiency with which macaws could be killed, thereby accelerating population declines ... The effects of other factors, including hurricanes and disease, are less easily predicted, but nonetheless potentially contributed to declines and extinctions." I am unsure why any other pages are cited, and some, eg 125–128, 230–132, seem irrelevant as support for the material.

I have removed 125-126. As for 230, that was a typo for 130, but 130 is exactly about this bird? But I have cut out page 131 and 132 from the range. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

1. To support "In 1978, the ornithologist Storrs L. Olson (using the spelling autochthones) agreed that the bone belonged to a macaw not assignable to any known species, but noted it may not have been native to St. Croix, since indigenous Caribbeans are known to have kept and traded macaws over long distances." you offer all 19 pages of Olson & Gill. But all that is needed is " The bone is indeed that of a macaw (although from an immature individual) and does not appear to be referable to any known species. However, since Indians elsewhere are known to have kept and traded live macaws, often transporting them long distances, the actual provenance of the species Ara autochthones may be subject to doubt." Most of the rest concerns itself with material having little to do with macaws of any species, much less the sentence it is offered in support of.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I could go on. Could you please check all of the longer citations to see if they could not be amended to only refer to the two or three sentences which actually directly support the material in your article which they refer to. Thanks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, before I do that, there has been discussions about this issue before; whether journal article page ranges should be broken down as books are, or if their entire page ranges should be given, as is de facto the norm, from what I can tell. Some seem to be for it, some against. Generally my impression is that it is mainly required for very long journal articles (30+ pages), and I can dig up some old FAC discussions that concluded that if we want to look at some precedents. Not that I don't see the merits of your suggestions, I'm just wondering where to "draw the line" for page range lengths. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Well WP:VERIFY says "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page ... " Personally I am what you might consider the stricter end, although I had considered myself, and been considered, pretty relaxed prior to checking this article. Basically I don't want a cite to direct me to any pages which are not necessary to support the statement they are attached to. So with Wiley & Kirwan, while all you need IMO is the section I quote I am not going to get worked up if you also cite 137–145 giving lots more detail, but I am going to come back asking for justification if you include 125–128, 230–132. I would be very open to an explanation, but if it is simply deep background, then I don't think that it meets WP:VERIFY. Hopefully this is clear and makes sense; let me know if not.

I am aware that off-Wiki there are other conventions, and that there have been attempts to import some of them into Wikipedia, but WP:VERIFY seems clear to me. All of that said, from the spot checking I have done it is clear that your sources do support your text, and I have no point nor principle to prove. Make verification a bit less time consuming and I'll be happy. (Just for comparison, in my recent FAC Siege of Calais (1346–1347), which you generously assessed, for Lambert's 12 page paper I used six separate cites; and Wagner's encyclopedia entry, which is split over two pages, gets two separate cites. Purely for info, I will not be expecting that here.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll have a look soon, I just wonder if you'd want this done for all journal sources, or just the very long ones. As for the (on-Wiki) discussions I was referring to, here is one:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I had not seen that particular one, but my view is that editors can chatter, or even agree, as they wish, but unless it results in a change to the MoS, or at least a positive RfC, it is just chatter. (Note that I am not saying that I disagree with it, only that I don't believe that it meets the MoS.) I don't wish to be hard on you, I realise that you have put a lot of work into the citations in good faith, so do the longer ones, ping me, and I'll have another look. (But wading through 30 pages of Wiley & Kirwan to find three sentences right at the end 'did my head in' and is in my opinion an unreasonable burden on a reader. In addition to the MoS issues.) I note in passing that Template:Cite journal shows that there is parameter for "pages", to give the page range of an article within a journal, and another for "page" described as "The number of a single page in the source that supports the content". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have nothing but respect for your judgment, so no problem, I'll give it a shot. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made changes according to the three points above, as well as shortened some other ranges, Gog the Mild. I wanted to shorten the Wing 1989 range, but I only have access to a newer edition of the book where her chapter is at another page range, so I don't know exactly where the relevant page is in the original. And the reason why I need to cite the original edition of the book is that the later response to Wing's statement is found in the same 2001 second edition of the book, but is written as a response to the 1989 edition. So it's a bit complicated... FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That all seems fine, thanks. And thank you for the explanation.

The sources used are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I have done a fair bit of spot checking, and the sources referred to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough reviews! FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Looking now...

• ...meaning native, aborigine, or indigene - "indigene" is an unusual word. I'd remove as the first two give the meaning enough

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Though fossils of the parrot genera Amazona and Aratinga have been found in pre-human sites on Puerto Rico, none belonging to macaws have been found. - presumably second "have" should be "had" as this sentence predates the current discovery

By current discovery, do you mean of the St. Croix macaw? It was not found in pre-human sites (which would indicate it was native), but only in kitchen middens (which makes it unclear if it was native). Of course, I could have misunderstood your comment... I added "none such" in front of "belonging to macaws" to make it clear it is in relation to the other "pre-human" remains... FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

My bad - I misread the statement Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• It is likely that the St. Croix macaw became extinct due to these factors, but the date it happened is unknown - presumably there is a clear date when there are none...? So can be "date unknown but before....?"

You mean that we should be able to extrapolate before which date it should have gone extinct? None of the sources speculate on this, we don't even know if it happened after the arrival of Europeans... The only source which says anything about an extinction date is Hume, who just says "date of extinction unknown". FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

What I meant was it could be narrowed down to (say) "unknown but before 1700" but if no sources do that then don't worry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for support, none of the sources speculate on that, also, if the birds were imported from elsewhere, who knows how long they could have survived in their native area after disappearing from these islands... FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise, strong article and on track to pass. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, answered above. FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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