Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zino's Petrel/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 Karanacs 20:36, 28 September 2010 [1].

Zino's Petrel

[edit]

Zino's Petrel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Europe's most endangered seabird still maintains a tiny population in the mountains of Madeira despite predation by introduced rats and cats, and a fire this August which killed two-thirds of the chicks. Still, with luck the nuns may continue to wail for a while yet. Thanks to Ucucha for GA review.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No problems with dablinks or deadlinks. ; the external link to [2] goes to a parked page ("This web page is parked FREE, courtesy of GoDaddy.com"). PL290 (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I've removed that link
  • Comment: Sorry; with all due respect, I don't like the idea of a user-made sketch of a bird being used to lead the article; it goes a little too close to original research for my liking (it also can have potential copyright problems). Have you tried sending out some emails? I'd be willing to, if you like... J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not clear how a self-made image can ever be a copyright problem unless it's an exact copy (trace and colour) of a photograph. I'm also not clear why it's OR; on that basis, every self-made map or diagram on Wikipedia is OR. No objections were made to the several self-made (not by me) images in FA Nuthatch. Having said that, the drawing is there because I couldn't find anything I could use, so if you can find an image with a suitable licence, that would be great. If not, I'd rather have the drawing than nothing. Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll make an effort to see what I can find. I would argue it's an OR issue because we effectively have what one user thinks they look like, rather than what they actually look like. Would you support the use of a picture I've painted of a mountain? And yes, the potential copyright problem is when you have copied the image exactly. If you haven't copied the image exactly, on what have you based it? There are no sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons file amended to give source material. For consistency you should also challenge the map, and all other bird distribution maps. AFAIK, all are self-made, and are therefore all either exact copies of copyright material or OR. I've often produced a composite map using a number of different sources. And what about this? or this? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagrams and maps are not really the same thing, in most cases. Diagrams and maps are just a visual representation of data (and yeah, said data needs sources). Sketches, paintings and such have a level of artistry. This isn't really the place for this debate; the point is, I really don't support the usage of pictures like this in the vast majority of cases. On a more positive note, I have sent out a large number of emails- hopefully we can agree that a photo is going to be preferable to the current picture? J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to comment on the user produced image issue. I see nothing wrong with this, on the contrary, the user should be congratulated and encouraged for their contribution. Encyclopaedias commonly employ graphic artists to illustrate their articles. There is nothing so different about Wikipedia that we cannot do the same. Certainly there is an amount of artistry in the image - this is a good thing and benefits the encyclopaedia. On the question of OR, the issue is no different to OR in the text, it all comes down to verifiability. We test whether text is acceptable by verifying against reliable sources, but we do not expect the text written in the article to be a copy of the source. There is no reason that images cannot be tested by verifying against images in reliable sources. It only becomes OR if images are not available in RS or the user's image does not substantially agree with the sources. SpinningSpark 17:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a big difference between employing a graphic artist and having user-submitted pictures. It's not that I do not support scientific drawings (or whatever the term is- I've nominated them for featured picture status before...) it's that I'm not mad keen on user-drawn scientific drawings. Again, though, this is not the place for this discusssion. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, you cannot raise an issue here and then cut off all opposition by saying this is the wrong venue. If this is the wrong place to raise the issue then strike your comments and I will strike mine. There is no difference in principle between user-drawn drawings and user-written text. Wikipedia is not usually able to verify the contribution by examining the reputation and qualifications of the provider as a conventional encyclopaedia would, but must instead rely on being able to verify the sources of that material. For all you know, the user may be an experienced scientific illustrator, then again they might not; what really matters is does the material stack up against the sources cited. SpinningSpark 00:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Al... right. We'll hold up this FAC and have a scrap. This is the wrong venue for a discussion on the nature of the issue as a whole, which is what we have gotten into. I have made my position clear, you have made yours clear. There's no need to set up battle lines, that's hardly going to help anything. However, the fact that you need to make reference to the "reputation and qualifications of the provider" really should be setting off alarm bells as far as OR issues go... The "reputation and qualifications of the provider" should not be a factor in any way, shape or form. That's the issue, so far as I see it, and that's why this teeters close (too close, for my tastes) to original research. J Milburn (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional sources that may be useful:

  • Title: Phylogenetic relationships of gadfly petrels Pterodroma spp. from the Northeastern Atlantic Ocean: molecular evidence for specific status of Bugio and Cape Verde petrels and implications for conservation Author(s): Jesus, J; Menezes, D; Gomes, S, et al. Source: BIRD CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL Volume: 19 Issue: 3 Pages: 199-214 Published: 2009
  • Title: The separation of Pterodroma madeira (Zino's Petrel) from Pterodroma feae (Fea's Petrel) (Aves : Procellariidae) Author(s): Zino, F; Brown, R; Biscoito, M Source: IBIS Volume: 150 Issue: 2 Pages: 326-334 Published: 2008
  • Title: From the rarities committee's files: Do we know what British 'soft-plumaged petrels' are? Author(s): Steele, Jimmy Source: British Birds Volume: 99 Issue: 8 Pages: 404-419 Published: AUG 2006

The first two have some good phylogenetics, which confirms that Madeira and Cape Verde Pterodroma are monophyletic (contrary to the louse data cited in the article). There are a few more that didn't seem as interesting; I can send you a few list if you wish, as well as PDFs of the first two papers. Ucucha 15:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for looking. The first paper apparently deals with the status of Desertas (Bugio) and Fea's (Cape Verde), which you suggested (at GA) I removed from the Zino's article. The second may well be out-of-date if it's mainly ID, in the light of the 2010 Shirihai study. I have the Steele paper, it doesn't add anything much, and it would be a bit parochial to include it. However, if the phylogenetics you mentioned is saying that all three of madeira, desertas and feae are a monophyletic group, I really need to see the papers, since that contradicts the louse stuff. I'd be grateful if you could send be the pdfs concerned, thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add those sources tomorrow, although they don't actually contradict what's already there. The lice data is to further support breeding isolation of madeira from desertas and separate colonisations of the two species; this is confirmed by the new papers. The fact that the louse species are different is not being used to suggest that Zino's and Deserta's are not closely related Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: In ref 2, "pp." should be "p.". In ref 16 the word "Oxford" is repeated. Otherwise, all sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm yet to get back any positive replies about a free photograph, and I'm not holding my breath with the other emails I sent out. I personally remain opposed to the use of the current image, (though I do appreciate its strengths, and I certainly don't mean to talk down your artistic ability, I don't consider it very Wikipedia) but I don't think a song and dance about it is useful or desirable. In any case, I'll give the article a read through.

  • "Predator control and other measures such the removal of grazing animals which trample the burrows, has enabled" Odd- I think it either needs more or fewer commas.
  • added comma after "control", inserted missing "as"
  • "differences in size, vocalisations, breeding behaviour and mitochondrial DNA analysis" This currently reads to say "differences in mitochondrial DNA analysis"- is that deliberate?
  • no, now ...but mitochondrial DNA analysis, and differences in size, vocalisations, breeding behaviour, showed...
  • "from Fea's Petrel's Pterodroma feae deserti from" I don't follow.
  • commas added to clarify, also linked louse
  • "Fea's Petrel's" belongs to the petrels (plural), surely? Meaning the apostrophe goes after the s?
  • shouldn't be there at all, removed
  • "the three Macaronesian petrel's are" why the apostrophe?
  • incompetence, fixed
  • "Greek "πτερον", pteron," Would the Greek not be italicised, rather than in speech marks?
  • italicised
  • "The Portuguese name Freira means "nun"; the inhabitants of Curral das Freiras (Nun's Valley) near the breeding site claimed that the nocturnal wailing of the petrels in the breeding season were the calls of the suffering souls of the nuns that had taken refuge in the valley from attacks on the island by French pirates in 1566 that lasted for 15 days." Split the sentence?
  • split
  • "seabird wreck" What's that?
  • added in which storms blow birds inland
  • "petrels at sea.[18][1][14]" Refs in order?
  • done, plus a later one
  • "include Trabeculus schillingi, Saemundssonia species and an unnamed species of Halipeurus." Links? Don't be scared of redlinks!
  • redlinked
  • "very restricted range" is repeated
  • second replaced by limited area

Nice written, well researched, comprehensive. A great article. J Milburn (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support from Spinningspark, with the following comments;

  • This long-winged petrel has a grey back and wings, with a dark "W" marking across the wings, and a grey upper tail. The repetition of wings makes this sentence klunky. Suggest "This long-winged petrel has a grey back, grey wings with a dark "W" marking across them, and a grey upper tail."
  • Amended as suggested
  • The typical ledge plants are endemic hemicryptophytess and Chamaephytes, but grasses may also be acceptable. I think that must mean that grasses are acceptable as a breeding position but it reads as if grasses are acceptable to the ledge.
  • changed to the more neutral ... but grasses may also be present.
  • dated at between 60,000 and 25,000 years. I have added the BP epoch to this which I assume is what is meant. Please correct this if it is wrong.
  • That's fine
  • Support Obviously a decent photo would be ideal, but the drawing is essentially verifiable from the sources mentioned on the image file, & certainly an image is needed. No other points - seems a very nice job. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2010 (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/Zino%27s_Petrel/archive1&oldid=1071662723"