Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mauritius Blue Pigeon/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 15:40, 4 December 2012 [1].

Mauritius Blue Pigeon[edit]

Featured article candidates/Mauritius Blue Pigeon/archive1

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been extensively reviewed and copyedited, and should be quite close to FA quality now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this article at its GA review. It seems to me to be well written and covers the subject as comprehensively as possible considering the limited number of sources available.

Questions and suggestions

Is there any discussion available of the implications of having an extinct type species? Any problems arising from this would seem to be exacerbated this case by the poor state of two of the three surviving specimens, and all of them being apparently female. As an ancillary suggestion, is there an agreed symbology for marking the type unit in genus, family, etc. articles? It may be useful to indicate the t.s. in Blue Pigeon. Samsara (FA • FP) 23:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You indicated in two of the figure captions what the relationship of the artist was to the bird - in one case, you write "Illustration of a stuffed specimen from Sonnerat's 1782 description" (which, I mused, might need to read, "Illustration of a stuffed specimen from Sonnerat's 1774 collection" if it was the stuffed specimen rather than the description that the artist worked from), in another, "1811 illustration by César Macret after Madame Knip", leaving it unclear whether Mme. Knip had earlier produced her own illustration which this is a copy of, or whether she gave a written or verbal account of the bird that the illustration is based on - maybe this could be clarified. But what of the other three illustrators - did they see the bird? Live? In a museum? It would have important implications for which of the reproductions we regard as most reliable. The first illustration gives the information in the image description, but confusingly in the caption - I think "Illustration of a male displaying its head feathers, ca. 1790, from life" might be clearer, as artists wouldn't usually aim to give the likeness of a bird in its dead state - with the obvious exception of a hunting still-life, which you conclude with and is well captioned imo. ("Live male" could be interpreted as an attempt to draw a live male, but from a dead specimen.) Samsara (FA • FP) 23:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the name of the artist should be given for each of the six topmost images, for consistency? (Currently 3.5 out of 6, with Sonnerat leaving it open whether he illustrated his own volume.) Samsara (FA • FP) 23:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read anything that indicated an extinct type species would be a problem. As long as there are specimens or descriptions of them, there is something to compare with. For a somewhat related example, Psittacula echo has at times been considered a subspecies of Psittacula eques, an extinct species which is only based on a drawing and some accounts. As for type species in a genus taxobox, see Triceratops for example.

On illustrations, Sonnerat's is worded like that because the image was published along with his description of the bird. I'll see if I can clarify that. The Madame Knip image is ambiguous, some sources only mention Knip, others that it was based on her drawing. I'm not sure what is meant. The only images drawn from live specimens are the two of the 1790 male, the rest are from stuffed or recently killed specimens. So apart from the live ones, the 1601 one is probably the most reliable. I personally have a suspicion the live specimen may simply have been a Seychelles Blue Pigeon, since it was not sent directly from Mauritius, and red tail feathers are neither shown in the image or mentioned in the old description, but that's irrelevant to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that I have knowledge of Sonnerat's not illustrating his own work, in case that was misinterpreted. As far as I'm concerned, the phrasing "Illustration of a stuffed specimen, by Pierre Sonnerat, published with his 1782 description" would be fine. Unless you know of something that would throw doubt on that course of events. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources again, there's actually no indication that Sonnerat himself made the drawing... As for the Knip image, a book source states it is an engraving by her and Macret, yet the website I downloaded the image from says what I have put in the caption. A third source only mentions Knip... Maybe she drew it, and he coloured it, there's no way to be sure from these sources at least. Maybe I can track down the original 19th century publication, may have more detail... FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ from Jim Nice article, and there's nothing in Gibbs, Barnes and Cox that I can add to what you have here. Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to give imperial conversions for all your measurements, not just one. Personally I'd prefer the metric all cm or all mm, rather than a mix, but that's up to you.
Blue Pigeons. — "blue pigeons" is incorrectly capped throughout. We only capitalise species, not higher taxa like pigeons or blue pigeons. In fairness, the linked genus article was also incorrectly capped, I've now moved it.
larger and more robust than any other Blue Pigeon. — add "species"?
"Mollusc" should be linked at first occurence.
Tricolore — The English word is Tricolour, and I don't think tricolore is capitalised en francais anyway
~~File:Pavillon Hollandais.jpg shows what appears to be a juvenile as well as the adult, shouldn't this be mentioned?~~
- Maybe I can jump in here - I understand that there was only one bird available that both individuals were drawn from. Therefore they are the same age, both adults, one with the ruff raised, the other with it in resting position. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fruit Doves also incorrectly capped
mainly arboreal, but other mainly frugivorous pigeons — repetition of "mainly"
oops; fixed --Stfg (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does Pender need four links?
the gizzard of the former is so strong that seeds are digested. — implies, but doesn't say, that the seeds are very hard
Ref 24. Do they really take 93 pages to say what is claimed? For journals, normally give the article page range. For books give the specific page or page range for the content you are quoting.
Ref 14 pp, but only one page
Cheke, Anthony S. (January 1987). — you've not given month for other refs

Thanks for the comments, I'll fix those issues soon, but there are a few issues. The birds in File:Pavillon Hollandais.jpg (as Samsara also mentioned) were both drawn from the same male specimen (don't know if the article makes it clear enough). As for seeds being hard, the article doesn't specifically say hard seeds, can I add that anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough with the image. My quick search didn't find an obvious source for the seeds being hard. Nevertheless, the gizzard of the former is so strong that seeds are digested. is still problematic. Digestion is mainly a chemical process, the gizzard is mechanical. Could we have something like the strong gizzard of the former helps in the digestion of the seeds.? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All issues should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice article, in overall good shape. Not much to comment upon, or even nitpick. I've dropped in a couple of redlinks.

In the Description section, "scapular feathers" should be linked to something (or redlinked) - not necessarily clear to someone who doesn't know a lot about birds. I would have linked it somewhere myself but scapula didn't seem right. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a perfect world, the feather article would go through the feather types and related terminology. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound like a very difficult project. Grab a few standard ornithology textbooks and Bob's your friend. :) Samsara (FA • FP) 18:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's redlinked now, so I've struck my comment. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I gave this article a look through between the GAC and the FAC, and I am happy that it is of featured quality as long as the sources are all utilised; I'm happy to accept that that is the case if neither Jim nor FunkMonk have found anything else. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all completely fine. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only extra info that could be added from the sources I have is more detail on who the people mentioned throughout the article were, when and where each stuffed specimen was transported; stuff that isn't directly related to the bird itself. Most of the modern sources echo each other anyway, and the 2012 book compiles the old and latest info. FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- structure-wise, just one thing: I don't think the list you provide under Citations should be headed that, rather Sources or something similar; Citations is sometimes used to label what you've headed Footnotes, but I wouldn't expect it to be used the way it is here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it, no problem with me personally, it was Br'er Rabbit who implemented this style back in the day. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literature check – I noticed that several articles came up in a Web of Knowledge search that weren't used in the article. Have these been consulted? Sasata (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title: AN OLD RECORD OF A BLUE PIGEON ALECTOENAS SPECIES AND SEA BIRDS ON FARQUHAR AND PROVIDENCE

Author(s): STODDART D R; BENSON C W

Source: Atoll Research Bulletin Volume: 136 Pages: 35-36 Published: 1970 link

Title: NOTES ON THE EXTINCT PIGEON FROM MAURITIUS ALECTROENAS-NITIDISSIMA

Author(s): TUIJN P

Source: Beaufortia Volume: 16 Issue: 218 Pages: 163-170 Published: 1969

Title: The true Pigeon Hollandais (Alectroenas nitidissima).

Author(s): Renshaw, G.

Source: Avicultural Magazine London Volume: 9 Pages: (159-160) Published: 1918 link

Title: The Pigeon Hollandais.

Author(s): Renshaw, G.

Source: Zoologist London Volume: 10 Pages: (49-52) Published: 1906

The first one refers to potential (hypothetical) blue pigeon species on other islands, not Mauritius. The rest seem so old that I'm sure they're summarised in the newer literature, but I'll try to track them down. Renshaw states the French common name "Pigeon Hollandais" was used to refer to the Seychelles Blue Pigeon after the original had gone extinct, but apart from this, no new info is provided. FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to Renshaw 1918, Sasata, there is a (tiny) photo of a stuffed specimen that might be used... I'll have to see when Renshaw died. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any date of death. Anyone know? FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Renshaw, d. Jan 13, 1952 JSTOR 25377998 Sasata (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Seems I'll have to upload the image locally then, it's only PD in the US. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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