Talk:Spotted green pigeon/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this interesting article. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 12:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

My comments:

Lead

 * It was first mentioned in 1723 by John Latham... No harm in adding that he described it as well. And link "described" as well.
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Link plumage. Also in the main text.
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Affinities" may be confusing, how about taxonomic history or relationships or phylogeny?
 * Took "taxonomic relationships". FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Extinct valid species or valid extinct species?
 * Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy

 * Link described. I think "provenance" should again be linked in the main body.
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ... in his work A General Synopsis of Birds from 1783 I have not seen "from" anywhere, I have rather seen "in" there. I don't know if I am wrong, but I think the best way would be ...his 1783 work...
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Some writers speculated that the specimens could ... but there is no evidence to support this Much vagueness here. Try to give at least one valid example of such a writer or cite one of such works in which such speculation is clear. As you have done in the second paragraph.
 * The source itself is vague on this: "Later authors, however, based on the relationship between Davies, Banks and Cook, made the assumption that the birds came from the South Pacific, although there is no evidence in the literature that a bird even faintly resembling a Spotted Green Pigeon was received by Banks after Cook’s third voyage (Medway 1979, Stresemann 1949, 1950, 1953)." I don't know what the citations at the end refer to, who made the claim, or who claimed there was no evidence... As this is the most comprehensive source about the bird, it doesn't seem to be important then. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally the authors stated at the end of a sentence like "Some authors hold that..." are the ones the text is referring to. BTW for your convenience I found the online Medway 1979 work here and Stresemann's 1950 work here. I think even citing these in the article should be enough. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 07:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the articles, they confirm my fear... They are articles about what birds Cook did collect, none mention the spotted pigeon, so they only support this part: "there is no evidence in the literature that a bird even faintly resembling a Spotted Green Pigeon was received by Banks after Cook’s third voyage". This means those that made the connection between Cook and the bird are not cited nor named... So not much I can add. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a solution would be to use the original source that told you about "those writers" in the first half of the sentence, and the second half could be sourced using these two articles. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 08:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean keeping the sentence as it is? I don't think I can let those sources stand alone, since they don't mention the subject of this article they have to be used in conjunction with the article that makes them, otherwise it might seem like original synthesis... But I can definitely add them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I say, if the speculation thing has no evidence or much significance, then why add such a troublesome line? Remove it and be done with it if unless it would be too big a loss which I don't think it will be. Even if we agree on a compromise here, I feel it will surely stir up trouble at FAC! Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 02:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How about "Though Banks received many specimens from British explorer James Cook, and Davis received specimens from contacts in New South Wales, implying a location in the South Pacific Ocean, there are no records of spotted green pigeons having been sent from these sources." FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a Brainwave! Go for it. I wonder if you still can add the new sources... Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 06:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Added new sentence, and the Cook source that seems most relevant. FunkMonk (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 *  Davies' specimen was originally mounted, and was perhaps taxidermied by himself. I could not understand what you meant by "mounted". Also, what exactly are you "perhaps" about? Are you unsure if it was taxidermied or if it was he or someone else who did it? I think this needs a rejig.
 * Spread it out, clearer? A mount is just a posed specimen rather than a study skin (not posed). I've added "posed". FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Better now. Thanks for telling me. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 07:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ... used it in his 1790 Index ornithologicus I think "1790 work" is clearer.
 * .Done. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Tommaso Salvadori listed the bird in an appendix about "doubtful species of Pigeons... Why should "P" of Pigeon be capitalized?
 * Since it's kind of a quote, but well, de-capitalised anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Why should Gmelin be considered the authority for the present name if he was associated only with Columba maculata?
 * Because the original species name is the "important" name that will remain constant in whatever genus the animal is classified in... This is the standard in taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 07:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 *  though some ornithologists accepted it as a valid (yet enigmatic) species Vague?
 * Removed the parenthesis, not sure if it addresses your concern? FunkMonk (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant the "some". I always recommend that when you say "some" also give at least one example for it. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 07:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Rewrote it, it seems it might even have been an overstatement, it seems like the bird was barely mentioned at all, with a single publication (not known if the only one) considering it valid. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In 2001 Errol Fuller suggested that the bird had been historically overlooked because Rothschild (who had an obsessive interest in rare birds) dismissed it as an aberration, perhaps due to not owning the specimen himself, and therefore downplaying its significance. This description of Rothschild could be rejigged, it looks inappropriate as it is.
 * I agree it was a bit too biased, better now? FunkMonk (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Much more encyclopedic. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 07:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The "common name" link. We have had enough discussions on it elsewhere, I wouldn't touch it anymore!
 * Hehe, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 *  He also hypothesised the bird might have inhabited a Pacific island In the lead you specified it as "South" Pacific Ocean.
 * The mention in the lead is due to the sentence "Some writers speculated that the specimens could have been brought from the South Pacific Ocean". FunkMonk (talk) 8:31 am, Today (UTC+1)
 * I see. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 11:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Link Polynesia. Should it be "eastern Polynesia"?
 * Did both. FunkMonk (talk) 8:31 am, Today (UTC+1)


 * Who is Michael Walters?
 * Specified him and Hume collectively. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Who is Heupink? If not known you may simply write "2014 study of ancient DNA".
 * Added occupation. I don't think naming people is necessarily a problem as long as their occupation is noted. Especially not when it comes to seminal studies like this. Hasn't been a problem before, in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Link phylogenetic, taxon
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ...yet the genetic distance between the two was more than what is seen within other pigeon species, but similar to that between different species in the same genus I could not understand the part after the comma. Are you referring in general to a genus and its species or are you talking of Caloenas and its species?
 * Clarified, better? As for the addition to your comment, it is both about the distance generally seen, and the distance in Caloenas. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 11:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ...suggests dispersal through island hopping and an origin for the spotted green pigeon in Oceania or Southeast Asia Should it not be "southeastern" Asia? I guess that is more proper unless you refer to some country like South Africa or North Korea. Same for South Asia in the last line of the section.
 * De-capitalised. FunkMonk (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ...indicates that the spotted green pigeon could also have originated somewhere in the Indian Ocean You don't mention the possibility of the bird's former occurrence anywhere near Indian Ocean in the lead.
 * Added, though it doesn't seem to be a much repeated view. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In any case, it seems most likely that the bird inhabited an island location, like its relatives You may be asked to specify which relatives you refer to.
 * Everything shown in the cladogram... Not sure how that could be clearer without repetition. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 07:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Description

 * I think citation 4 should be placed at the end of the line Latham's slightly extended ... reads as follows: rather than inside the quote.
 * From what I've seen, the opposite is actually used in most FAs with quotes. In any case, hasn't been a problem for me in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will remember that. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 07:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Who is Hein van Grouw? And Brian Small?
 * Specified the former, removed the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 *  The weight was never recorded This seems to imply that the last specimen is no more alive. I think it should read  The weight has not been recorded.
 * Changed. In any case, stuffed specimens are not useful for this purpose... FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Link mantle, scapular
 * Explained mantle, as there's no article, and linked latter. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Behaviour and ecology

 * The name of the bird mentioned by Tahitians in 1928 was said to be similar to that bird's call; "titi Vague?
 * I tried different versions, but couldn't find one that didn't repeat the word... Tried something else, better? FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, this can not be rejigged very well. Let it be as it is. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 07:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Extinction

 * ... may already have been close to extinction by the time Europeans arrived in its native area Wait, you have not stated the range explicitly, then which area do you refer to? It could be the Pacific or the Indian Ocean, and we do not even know where exactly. Forget about the "when".
 * That's why I don't specify. Wherever it lived, it was native to somewhere, but we don't know where it is... But the information about European arrival would be the same. FunkMonk (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I see why this can not be specified. But if you are so sure of the European arrival, then you could add this to the lead and Taxonomy sections so that when one first comes across it they will know that this bird was native to some area in the Pacific where the European arrival is confirmed. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 07:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you want added? We know Europeans encountered the birds in their native area because specimens were brought to Europe, not because there are accounts of their discovery in the wild. So it kind of goes without saying (and no source states it explicitly). FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, we have a justification now. Not a great thing to add as you said. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 08:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * General : It would be better if you rearranged stuff and made it look like it has enough inline citations instead of "spreading over" citations for each paragraph by mentioning them at the end of each paragraph. Also, you must modify the lead as you modify the article.
 * Hmm, this is an optionable style issue, there's no rule as to which is better. Never had problems with this style. If everything in a paragraph is from the same source, only once citation is needed by the end. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, just a suggestion. Nothing mandatory here. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 07:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Overall, a really laudable effort. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 15:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One to go. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 08:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to go. Don't waste a second before hurling this into FAC, will you, ;)? BTW, This seems to be the 100th bird GA. See  Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 06:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice! Already have two FACs up, so have to wait until one of them passes... I'm surprised how little response the passenger pigeon has gotten, perhaps the article is intimidating... FunkMonk (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why, is it a rule to wait? Didn't know. Anyway I'm gonna shove Dromedary in. I guess the pigeon article is dangerously flawless! Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 12:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can only have one FAC up as sole nominator, but one more if it is a co-nomination... "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them." But GANs are limitless. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 14:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A little bonus info I forgot to mention,, while researching for this article, I found the alternate version of the 1823 plate seen under description... I was puzzled because it differed so much from the version mentioned in the sources, so I asked Hein van Grouw (who wrote the latest detailed paper about the bird) about it in an email, and he said he had never seen it before... The weird thing is, it looks more like the existing skin than the other version of the drawing... So as it seems to have been overlooked, it is kind of "new" to science! FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * o_O So Wikipedia is leading to discoveries?! Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 04:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * These two depictions of extinct birds I identified were also previously unknown in the literature according to Julian P. Hume! So researching for Wikipedia can have benefits outside of improving articles... FunkMonk (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A biiiig WOW! Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 05:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)