Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King Island Emu/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 10:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC).

King Island Emu

 * Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it collects practically all known information about this extinct bird (including recent genetic work), and it is doubtful that much more will ever be known about it. The article has been copy edited, and all important historical PD images have been added. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage
I have some prose and referencing concerns at the moment, and will try to do a closer reading later for additional prose issues. I'm not strictly opposing at this time, but I think this article has the potential for some improvement still. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Probably" reword one of the last two sentences of the lead.
 * Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at this myself. Hopefully, I didn't make it worse.  If not, revert away.  Either your version or mind, I think, would be better than the original.
 * I think it's better, thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure on the capitalization of emu here when it's not referring specifically to the King Island Emu. It's my understanding that bird species names get capitals, and the Emu is a specific species, but the Emu (the mainland species) is also a type of emu (the category of birds). Regardless, it looks weird the way it currently is.
 * I thought the same early on, so I guess so too, and I'll fix that now. I've left "mainland Emu" capitalised, since "Emu" is the common name of that taxon, but if anyone objects, I can change it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave any further discussion about the emu/Emu debate to someone more familiar with the MOS issues at hand.


 * Update the ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s.
 * Alright. How can I do that? FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Found a nice tool, done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of your references have a closing period, but some are missing it.
 * Fixed. Why does the "citation" and "cite journal" templates differ in this? FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand, those were from different generations of reference templates. It's all ancestral wisdom to me, really. I just hunt for misplaced dots! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, seems like the "citation" template should be updated then, that's the only one that causes the problem. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unlikely to happen, as some articles use the citation template instead of the cite foo family, and in general any internally consistent referencing style is copacetic.


 * The Mathews 1921 source is fully available online, and you should link to the page.
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how useful they'll all be (and I have more limited source access than normal at the moment), but there are quite a few more sources to consider for this topic, especially ones from the Australian ornithology journal Emu:
 * Ashby E (1924). "Notes on Extinct or Rare Australian Birds, with Suggestions as to Some of the Causes of their Disappearance". Emu 23 (3): 178-183. doi:10.1071/MU923178
 * Nothing new. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That one had such a promising sounding title, too.
 * Brasil L (1914). "The Emu of King Island". Emu 14 (2): 88-97. doi:10.1071/MU914088
 * Covered in later sources, but I've added a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Legge WV (1907). "The Emus of Tasmania and King Island". Emu 6 (3): 116-119. doi:10.1071/MU906116
 * Added cite, but it doesn't bring any new info, just another junior synonym. FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Color me weird, but I love documenting short shelf-life junior synonyms. I think it gives a sense of history to the science of taxonomy that other reference works rarely, if ever, have the space to consider.
 * I like it too myself, which has lead to taxonomy sections being the bulk of some articles I've written in the past. In this case it is of minor importance, because it wasn't really a taxonomic response, it was just a matter of which publication came first. I read earlier today that Legge retracted the name when he learned one had already been published, but I don't remember where... And in any case, the name would be invalid, as it was the youngest at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Morgan AM, Sutton J (1928). "A critical description of some recently discovered bones of the extinct Kangaroo Island Emu (Dromaius diemenianus)". Emu 28 (1): 1-19. doi:10.1071/MU928001
 * Was covered already by newer sources, but added citation anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with demonstrating that work on the topic has been ongoing.
 * Roots, C (2006). Flightless Birds. Greenwood. p.172. ISBN 978-0313335457.
 * I've encountered this book before, it just summarises already cited material, and in some cases it is even wrong. His entries for some species have several errors. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Got to take a look at this myself. Agreed, exclude this one.  WorldCat, you failed me here.
 * Oh, and this column from The Examiner from 1906.
 * It seems to be a summary of Spencer's 1906 paper (which is already cited), and to also have been written by him, so it doesn't add anything new. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'll fix the issues in a moment. As for sources, the older ones are mostly covered by newer sources, but I'll give them an extra look. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All issues should now be addressed, but I of course don't know whether it is satisfactory or not. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No further referencing objections. I need to take another pass through the prose when I have the time, but I always like to hit the bottom of the article first because if the references fall apart under pressure, then it doesn't matter if the text sounds pretty.  Good so far, though! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, and thanks for the sources, I like using original citations whenever I can. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no further problems with the article, so making my support official. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Comments from Jim Comprehensive and generally pretty good, but several minor issues  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * extinct sub-species of emu &mdash; this invites confusion with the capitalised Emu in line 4, especially as it's referring to that species, better as of the Emu
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The King Island Emu was the smallest of all emu taxa &mdash; "taxa" is a bit unfriendly in the lead, especially since it's not linked, smallest of all emus may be better
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The bird gathered in flocks to forage and during breeding time, and fed on berries, grass and seaweed. They ran swiftly
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * kept in Jardin des Plantes &mdash; the Jardin?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * King Island likely drove the wild population &mdash; "likely" looks American to me, please assure me that it's standard Ozspeak
 * I'm not sure I follow. You mean the word likely? It should be pretty old English. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that construction, using "likely" where a Brit would use "probably" strikes me as AE, but I don't know if it's also Australian usage. Either way, it's no big deal  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How about "presumably"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * which has led to some confusion &mdash; further confusion?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Jouanin and Jean-Christophe Balouet demonstrated that the mounted skin in Paris came from King Island &mdash; How?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * nuclear and mitochondrial DNA &mdash; links needed
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * alternate genetic or non-genetic, gene/genetic &mdash; I think you mean "alternative", also need to link gene or genetic
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * links or explanations needed for intertrochlear foramen, distal foramen, cranium
 * Added some links, but the second term is not likely to ever get an article, since it is relative to the structure in question (a structure which is found in many bones). Like if we said "distal end of the metacarpus", there wouldn't be anything specific to make an article about, apart from metacarpus itself.

FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'm happy if you want to lose the redlink since, as you say, the article is unlikely to ever be written  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ...foraging, which was exploited by hunters &mdash; ...foraging, behaviour which...?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Either parent stayed by the nest when the other was incubating &mdash; The non-incubating parent stayed by the nest?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * which also brought along naturalists, who described the local wildlife &mdash; why the comma?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of your references appear to be in French, but there is no "language = " parameter to tell us that
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Binomials should be italicised even in the references
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I've fixed some issues, and will fix the rest later today. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied to a couple of your comments above, but there is nothing significant outstanding, so I've changed to support above  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Nice work, but what if anything is the difference between a sufossil and a subfossil?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, the difference is that the former is a typo, good catch! FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. "scientific names subsequently being erected for either bird," is an odd use of erected, if that is Biologists jargon, is there an alternative word such as allocated that would be acceptable to scientists and more obvious to lay readers?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Coined" could be better. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Thanks for your prompt response, signing out now as I don't think that I can contribute much further to this. But for what its worth I think the prose is FA standard.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Dromaius_peroni.jpg needs US PD tag, as do all other files (and there are several) that have only the life+70 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I may not be able to respond to suggestions from Friday until Monday. FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Sasata
Prose and MoS nitpicks for now; I may have more substantive comments on content after I try a lit check.
 * I'm satisfied that the article meets the FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sasata (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as for lit check, be aware that most sources prior to the 1980s are very outdated and usually incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * any reason why sub-species is hyphenated? Our article does not do so, and it is inconsistent with the non-hyphenated version in the taxobox.
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * possibly useful links: plumage, incubation, sealer, taxonomically
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "The birds gathered in flocks to forage and during breeding time, and fed on berries" weak construction (and ...and)
 * Split. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "and in 1804 several live as well as stuffed King and Kangaroo Island Emus" "as well as" -> "and"?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why bad weather would have prevented emu encounters
 * Explained. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * no first name for L. Brasil?
 * Searched, but found nothing. The similarity to "Brazil" also muddles up search results... FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * link Broderip, Blyth, Rothschild, Sutton in the taxobox
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * our article does not hyphenate eggshell
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * should ensure short-form binomials have a non-breaking space (also in the range map caption in the taxobox)
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * link subfossil, invalid, taxon, morphology; subfossil is inconsistently hyphenated in the article (shouldn't be, according to our article)
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "…was reclassified as a subspecies of Dromaius novaehollandiae; D. n. ater." think a comma works better here
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "features which distinguish the taxa." which->that (check throughout article for other instances; "which" generally follows a comma)
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "During the Late Quaternary period" consider adding the dates for this period parenthetically so the reader doesn't have to click out
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "approximately 100 km" give imperial conversion? (to be consistent with rest of article)
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * link land bridge, founding, tibia, femur, pelvis; link tarsometatarsus and foramen earlier
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Fossil emu taxa show an average size, between that" comma not necessary?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * should the cranial comparison image perhaps indicate that the mainland bird is represented by A,B, and C?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "a feature which is in fact also seen"
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Péron's interview sheds light" not sure if idiomatic expressions are appropriate for encyclopaedic writing
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "They swam well, but only when necessary." so when it wasn't necessary, they swam poorly?
 * Fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "1800–1804" ->1800–04 per WP:YEAR
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Some of these survive in European museums today." this could perhaps be interpreted as meaning there are specimens alive today; reword?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference nitpicks:
 * Brasil 1914 should give the full page range
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * is this a suitable link for Viellet 1817?
 * Seems to be about warblers, so doens't appear so. FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * please check the citation for Spencer & Kershaw 1906; this journal is available online at archive.org, but I cannot seem to find the article cited (should have a full page range too)
 * Fixed range, but not sure how to link to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * full page range for Legge 1906 & Morgan and Sutton 1928 (needs issue# too)
 * Fixed range, but I can't find the issue number. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Mathews & Ireland should be title case to be consistent with the other book sources
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Jouanin 1959 has different author format
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * no volume# for Balouet & Jouanin 1990? (check author name format too)
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Bull. B.O.C. -> why is this journal title abbreviated?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Heupink et al. (2011) should be sentence case
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Patterson & Rich (1987) available online here
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Milne-Edwards & Oustalet (1899) available here
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Giglioli 1900 & 1901 should be sentence case
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

All issues should be addressed now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't find anything worthwhile to add from a lit search. I do have a copy of Hume & Walters 2012 Extinct Birds, and thought it might be useful to do a spot-check:
 * according to the cited source, the heaviest birds weighed 45 to 50 pounds, not 40–51 as given in the article
 * Not sure what happened there, might have been created when the amounts were converted. Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * close paraphrasing:
 * Source: "It was constructed on the ground of sticks, and lined with dead leaves and moss; it was oval in shape and not very deep."
 * Article: "It was constructed of sticks and lined with dead leaves and moss; it was oval in shape and not very deep."
 * Source: "The chicks were striped and left the nest two to three days after hatching."
 * Article: "… and the chicks left the nest two to three days after hatching."
 * The part that is closely paraphrased was itself quoted directly from a public domain text from the 19th century (Milne-Edwards & Oustalet 1879, which was itself taken from Péron's even older account), and wasn't actually written by Hume and Walters, so I only modified it slightly. But if it is a problem, I can change it further. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * why not mention that subfossil remain are in Adelaide?
 * I know they are in more places than there (the authors of the genetics paper used bones in the Museum Victoria, for example), so it seems a bit odd to point out only that place. But I don't have any comprehensive list either. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Other than the above, everything else checks out ok from this source. Sasata (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by DrKiernan

 * Claiming the birds couldn't run because they were too fat sounds very 19th-century. Surely they were slower because they had shorter legs or had no natural predators?
 * That's what the source says, but I could specify that it was the sealer's claim? FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we know that their eggs were always laid on 25 and 26 July?
 * Not really, but we don't have other testimony of their behaviour than that of Cooper the sealer. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would qualify these two paragraphs and put the paragraph on Flinders and Latham either first or last in the section, so that the sealer's testimony is all together. I would also change "documents" and "shows" to something less definite because anecdotal claims from a layperson are not as strong as direct evidence analysed by an expert. So, what I would have is something like:
 * "Péron's interview describes some aspects of the behaviour of the King Island Emu. He writes that..." (rest of paragraph could remain the same) and
 * "He claimed that seven to nine eggs were laid always on 25 and 26 July, but the selective ... (rest of sentence the same)" and "Peron gave the incubation period as five or six weeks..." in the final sentence to avoid repetition of "claimed". DrKiernan (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the attribution thing, which I'll implement as you describe it, but not on the order. All the sources mainly quote Péron (and Cooper), and it is not even sure what Latham was referring to. Flinders and his men didn't even observe live emus, whereas Cooper basically lived with them every day. But I've now grouped Péron's stuff in order, just as the first, not last, paragraphs. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Do we really have to have colo(u)ration with a u? DrKiernan (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's British spelling throughout FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Thank you for the changes. DrKiernan (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments

 * I tweaked the lead a tad, let me know if any issues; suggest however that you clarify who "had arrived on King Island in 1802", Peron or the sealer.
 * Fixed, it was Péron. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Aside from that, unless Sasata has anything to add, I think this is about ready to close. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.