Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Northern Bald Ibis


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009.

Northern Bald Ibis

 * Nominator(s): jimfbleak (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think this now meets all the criteria. I've spent a great deal of time on this one, it had a very thorough Good Article review, which I think sorted out the worst infelicities in presentation and a couple of image/referencing issues. It's also had much helpful input from the Birds project. Time to be thrown to the wolves jimfbleak (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment This hungry wolf was looking for nice bird meat to chew on, but returned mostly disappointed. :) Could only manage to make away with feathers below:
 * as described above. -- redundant
 * =In culture= has extra whitespace at the end of the section.
 * For an article of this caliber, the maps are a letdown, especially the map of Morocco. Have you tried Graphics lab? I'm not sure what image editing software you use, but try gaining experience with Inkscape. It's cool. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Thanks for reviewing, sorry you left without a full stomach :)
 * as described above. now removed
 * Hadn't spotted that a previous editor added a , gone now
 * The maps were actually improved by another editor! I have inkscape, but I've never really mastered it. If the article seems likely to fail on the quality of the maps, I'll remove them, since they are not mandatory anyway.
 * Thanks again jimfbleak (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely that the article will fail because of the images, but good articles should have professionally-created images. This time I returned and managed to get some nice meat, catching several peacocks and weasels too.

=Nichalp  «Talk»=  17:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Eritrea,Saudi Arabia -- +space needed
 * Done jimfbleak (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I think =Reintroductions= needs to be promoted to a top level heading. It does not seem to be a "conservation status" of any sort.
 * Don't like, separates from wild pops, changed to conservation jimfbleak (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) now thought/has been suggested  -- check for peacock/weasel terms
 * I think I've got them all - only remaining thought and suggesting are where appropriate jimfbleak (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) has recently been and Until recently, the main cause of breeding, has now put protection  -- vague --> how recent?
 * 2006 for first occurence, second removed jimfbleak (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) have a good record for conservation -- how "good"?
 * I can't quantify beyond the BirdLife International source. If you think that good is inadequate, I'll remove the sentence, since I can't realistically evaluate better than a major international conservation organisation jimfbleak (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) heavily managed?
 * rephrased The birds were taken into captivity after jimfbleak (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) A trial migration using tagged birds confirmed the risks presented to travelling birds by pesticides. -- points to Ref 27. But the source there mentions tagging in future tense: To solve the riddle, more Turkish birds will be tagged next year by Czech expert Lubomir Peske. 
 * I think you have misread. The first sentence of the reference refers to a past trial with tagged birds which were poisoned. Peske's future trial will be to find where juveniles winter jimfbleak (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) which had wings of brass and sharp metallic feathers they could fire at their victims -- what could be fired?
 * which had wings of brass and could fire sharp metallic feathers at their victims jimfbleak (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) origin should be used. -- rephrase. The word "should" sits odd here.
 * Only birds of known origin will be used in future captive breeding and releasing programmes. jimfbleak (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) as of July 2006 --> use the As of template
 * Done jimfbleak (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) dramatic mortality incident?  check wording
 * major now jimfbleak (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a left-aligned image under the third-level heading at "Zoo populations", breaching WP:ACCESS], but moving the image right will breach [[WP:MOS, with the bird facing off the page. Can the image be moved to another location in the article? I saw a missing publisher, and accessdates are not consistently formatted (some are ISO and some are Day Month Year).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Awadewit seems to have fixed the image and retrieval dates, i checked through and couldn't see any discrepancies (although I don't know what ISO is, so I might have missed something.
 * Are the ISOs the downloaded = ones - if so, they're fixed now jimfbleak (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopdische Zeitung von Oken I assume is the one missing a publisher, but I can't find one jimfbleak (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3
 * File:Moroccomap-02.png - We need a reliable source for this map (although, like the above reviewer, I think a better map is preferable). Have you tried or  ?
 * I can't find a reliable source for the detail of the location of the Souss-Massa NP (which I assume is what you are challenging since the location of the towns is indisputable}. Given the concerns about quality, I've removed the map altogether jimfbleak (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Atlas-Mountains-Labeled-2 new.jpg - We need a RS for this map.
 * I've rewritten the image description to go directly to the NASA map which is the source of the original image, and also added an atlas reference for the labels. jimfbleak (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Ahk-glyph2.jpg - Why do we have a drawing of this and not the original image? If the original is under copyright, please explain why the drawing isn't a derivative work.
 * GA reviewer thought original was copyright, I now think that was incorrect and have restored original image File:Bald ibis hieroglyph.jpg, which I think is appropriately referenced for the Birdlife international source and the FAO for the age of the carvings. If this is incorrect, I'll put back the drawing and rewrite description to source as derivative of Birdlife International photo jimfbleak (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The original is definitely under copyright - see this statement: "All photos are copyrighted by BirdLife and/or its contributing photographers and may not be reproduced or exploited in any fashion without permission from BirdLife." Since the carving is a three-dimensional objects, PD-Art does not apply here, so we cannot use this photo. The photographer has creative rights in this photo, in other words. That then raises the tricky question of whether the drawing is a derivative work of the photo or whether it is a just a drawing of the hieroglyphs themselves. Hm. As you copied this directly from the drawing, I am leaning towards derivative work (meaning we cannot use it), however, how different would the drawing look if you were standing in front of the glyphs themselves? I will solicit further advice on this question. Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I should point out that the drawing was not traced from the photo, but is a freehand version, and far from an exact copy. I accept your view that the photo is copyright, and I've put the drawing back, but surely the photographer cannot own the copyright to all non-first-hand depictions of these ancient carvings? I could of course claim that I drew it from life (jimfbleak (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on this and my assessment that the drawing does not copy original elements of the photo, I believe that this drawing is not covered by the photographer's copyright. Awadewit (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

These should be easy to resolve and I look forward to striking this oppose. Awadewit (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the image review and the very helpful copyedit, jimfbleak (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several Ibis hieroglyphs in commons:Category:Ibis-crested_(hieroglyph) and the "akh" glyph is included in commons:Category:Hieroglyphs_of_Egypt:_birds they are public domain. So there should be no problem of copyright here. Shyamal (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references. Example only - current ref 22 (Nothern Bald Ibis... RSPB).
 * Current ref 64 (Stymphalian Birds..) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. I think I've fixed all the RSPB-type abbreviations, IUCN is templated but has a direct link to its article anyway. Ref 64, I really only wanted the image link, so i've changed the url to direct straight to the picture and sourced it to the museum. If there are still concerns, I'll remove the image link and just keep the text and ref to the museum. jimfbleak (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - comprehensive and well written. A few comments: I am unable to find similar references to "ahk" and that seems to be a widespread misspelling. Shyamal (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * searches with ahk+ibis and akh+ibis on google scholar suggests that the spelling should be "akh" - I have added a glyph based on the work of Egyptologists - if it is art it is public domain since the original artists died many thousands of years ago. Otherwise I am not sure if an alphabet (non-ornate) can be copyrighted. File:Akh_glyph.svg. Scholarly references that use the spelling "akh" are http://pes.ff.cuni.cz/pdf/PES2-2003-janak.pdf,
 * Janak, Jiri: Spirit migratory. Význam ibisa skalního ve starém Egyptě (Migratory Spirit. The Bald Ibis in Ancient Egypt); In: Lidé a zvířata . Meaning ibis in ancient Egypt rock (Migratory Spirit. The Bald Ibis in Ancient Egypt); In: People and animals. 1. vyd. 2007, Soubor studií pracovní skupiny „Člověk a krajina v dějinách“. ed 2007, The working group study "Man and Landscape in history." Praha: Orientální ústav Akademie věd ČR; s. 56-62. Prague: Oriental Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, p. 56-62. ISBN 978-80-87180-00-6. Anotace: Migrace a chování ibise skalního se odráží v egyptském pojetí ducha (ach) zesnulého člověka. ISBN 978-80-87180-00-6. Description: Migration and behavior ibise rock is reflected in the Egyptian concept of the spirit (oh) the deceased man. (Migration and behaviour of the Bald Ibis is reflected in Egyptian conception of the akh-spirit.) (Migration and behavior of the Bald Ibis is reflected in Egyptian conception of the AKH-spirit.)
 * Englund,G. 1978 Akh – une notion religieuse dans l’Egypte pharaonique, Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, BOREAS [Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 11].
 * Friedman, Florence D. (Florence Dunn) On the meaning of AKH (3H) in Egyptian mortuary texts Thesis (Ph.D.)--Brandeis University, 1981
 * Janak, Jiri: Migratory Spirits: Remarks on the AKH Sign editor: Cannata, M.; In: Current Research in Egyptology 2006. 1. vyd. 2007, Oxford: Oxbow Books; s. 116-119. ed 2007, Oxford: Oxbow Books, p. 116-119. Stěhovaví duchové. Migratory spirits. Několik poznámek ke znaku ach) ISBN 978-1-84217-262-9. Anotace: Research on the Waldrapp bird has brought some new foundings about meaning of the akh spirit in Egyptian religion. A few notes on the character ach) ISBN 978-1-84217-262-9. Description: Research on the Waldrapp bird has brought about some new foundings meaning of the AKH spirit in Egyptian religion.
 * Dows Dunham (1946) An Egyptian Diadem of the Old Kingdom Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, Vol. 44, No. 255 (Feb., 1946), pp. 23-29


 * thanks for the research and support, I've fixed the spelling as you suggest - my ancient Egyptian isn't what it used to be (- also hadn't occurred to me that writing symbols, which is what the akh is, cannot realistically be copyright, even if not ancient jimfbleak (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support (moral or otherwise) I have copyedited and looked over this article a few times, and feel it meets criteria. I disclose I am another birdo :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for the support and the corrections - I'm particularly impressed by the Latin! jimfbleak (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - engaging, well-written and beautifully illustrated. Graham Colm Talk 10:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Graham, the text owes a great deal to input from awadewitt and members of the bird project jimfbleak (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Can the "Arabic and English" (boldface) in the "Beaky the Bald Ibis" source be formatted in the same way as the Spanish and German sources. Right now, the bold text jumps out above anything else in the references section.
 * It looks as if the language templates were changed to debold, and this untemplated one was left behind -fixed now jimfbleak (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My second concern is the Ibismap_2003 graphic. It's a political map, with roads and other such features, and really is not so suitable as a backdrop for a nature/bird migration map.  MODIS Blue Marble  would be an excellent backdrop, possibly with country boundary outlines.  That's something that I could help with, though there are a number of tools to use such as NASA's World Wind, that you might not need assistance. --Aude (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, and I would be grateful if you could help on this - I'm a computing dunce, and I couldn't really see how to do what you were suggesting. jimfbleak (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Slight oppose - for now, mainly from some glitches, but also for a few neglected spots.
 * Lead feels a bit skimpy to me. Might mention the fact that they unlike other ibis they don't wade. Maybe mention how far back in the fossil record they date. Might mention size? Might mention that it disappeared from Europe over 300 years ago? Might mention the discovery that they weren't extinct in Syria after all?
 * Done, please check
 * Better.


 * Might give time frames for the fossil finds .. i.e. "... found at a Holocene (about 10,000 years ago)..." as not all your readers are going to be familiar with the time frames. Might also mention the specific date ranges for the mentioned fossil finds also.
 * Done I've added approximate times, can't do more accurately than that from available sources


 * Taxonomy section, fifth paragraph .. "The specific..." I know you have specific wikilinked, but might put in a capsule explanation.
 * Done now sentence just starts with Eremita is -is that clearer?


 * Description section .. colonial ibis? What are those? And how do they differ from other varieties?
 * Done expanded - and, as with other ibises that breed in colonies, have longer bills. The longer-billed males are more successful in attracting a mate. Non-colonial ibis males wouldn't be competing so directly, so it would be less relevant


 * Overall, capsule explanations for some of the wikilinked terms wouldn't go amiss. Such as "nominate form"
 * Done nominate (first-named) form now. I couldn't see any others not already fixed, but let me know if I've missed anything


 * Do they attract new mates each year or do they bond for a few years or do they bond for life?
 * Done added that they pair for life


 * Conservation status ... second paragraph the sentence starting "These include significantly human persecution, especially hunting,..." do you mean "Significantly, these include..." or "These include significant human ..."? It's unclear from the context, but the sentence is awkward as it stands.
 * Done grammatical error fixed and a redundant human chopped, now These include significant human persecution, especially hunting, and also the loss of steppe and non-intensive agricultural areas (particularly in Morocco), pesticide poisoning, disturbance, and dam construction.


 * Reintroductions section, last sentences... "In future captive breeding and releasing programmes, only birds of known origin should be used.[11] 850 birds in"... the 850 birds in bit is just tacked on there, is it a remnant of editing?
 * Done just stray debris
 * I'll be happy to support when the above concerns are taken care of. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing and comments, jimfbleak (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The prose is still a bit dry, but it's acceptable and works for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look again in the morning to see if there are things I can improve jimfbleak (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.