Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Newton's Parakeet/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 User:Ian Rose 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC).

Newton's Parakeet

 * Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Very little is known about this bird, and what is known is somewhat questionable. I've tried to collect as much obscure info as possible (from both new and old sources)), and to make it easy to understand, despite its complexity. I have also added all important historical images, and hope this account will bring some attention to the species. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support – To my layman's eye this seems to meet all the FAC criteria. It is evidently comprehensive, and is easy to read and understand. Very enjoyable, in fact, with the pleasing historical extracts. The sources are varied and well cited. Only one minor quibble: the final para puzzled me a bit – after mention of the 1967 speculation we are then told that speculation ceased before the start of the 20th century, or am I misreading this? The OED, Chambers and Collins all prefer "coloration" to "colouration", but they all permit the latter: I just mention the point. – Tim riley (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yeah, I could had worded it differently, one source states there were actual rumours until the 20th century, but I didn't count Greenway's 1967 assumptions as actual rumours, but there should be a better way to clarify this. I'll give it a try soon, and notify you here when I've done it. As for colouration, well, I've used that spelling in the other FAs I've worked on, so it's a bit of a habit now... FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed the order of the sentences to be chronological, does it make it clearer that rumours are separate from speculation? FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarifies the matter nicely. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Will stop by shortly to review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Support. Small but perfectly formed and a very interesting and easy read. I've made a few very minor tweaks here and there, but feel free to revert if you feel differently. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Comments - looking over now -queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC) on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Anything we can do with the three lead paras, all of which start with, "Newton's Parakeet...." - just to mix up the prose and layout a little?


 * The second and third sentences of the lead both start with "It...." - thinking of ways to mix it up a little, maybe reword sentence #2 to " The Alexandrine Parakeet of the same genus is a close relative and probable ancestor." (?)


 *  Newton's Parakeet was first mentioned by French naturalist François Leguat in 1708, and was only mentioned a few times by other writers afterwards. - two "mention"s - maybe "Newton's Parakeet was first written about by French naturalist François Leguat in 1708, and was only mentioned a few times by other writers afterwards." - or something equivalent?


 * link sternum


 * ' 'Newton's Parakeet was about 40 cm (16 in) long, roughly the size of the Rose-ringed Parakeet.'' - I think a dash works better than a comma between the two clauses here.

Otherwise looking pretty on target for FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed everything except the first one, have some questions. Usually write the full name in the beginning of new paragraphs, just to make clear what I'm referring to. Any alternate proposals? FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just tweaked it like this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Just wondering about the sentence "It was mostly greyish or slate blue in colour" in the second paragraph. Does that just apply to the plumage or the feet and/or beak as well? Also, does Psittacula need to be linked (in the 2nd paragraph) when it's in the infobox? Not sure what you think about the two edits I did either. Vctrbarbieri (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll add "plumage". Taxobox links are not enough. As for your edit, looks good, though natural selection is a given, and therefore not mentioned in the source, so will have to tweak that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Note I would like to see a sources and images review. Although I do not anticipate any issues. Graham Colm (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:LocationRodrigues.PNG: what base map or source data does this image use? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All maps in that style are based on this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-World-large.png FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- promoting without a formal source review; nothing stood out on my cursory inspection. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


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