Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rodrigues rail/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2017.

Rodrigues rail

 * Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This is an article about an obscure, extinct rail, the closest relative of the likewise extinct red rail, which was featured a few years ago. I've been sitting on this GA since 2012, while expecting Julian Hume to publish a monograph article about extinct Mascarene rails (like those about the parrots and pigeons from there), but now I'm not so sure it will come any time soon, and figured this would be as good a time as ever to polish and nominate it. The article covers pretty much everything written about this bird so far, and will of course be expanded further if that monograph is ever written. FunkMonk (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
All links checked and working. The only issue is with ref 4, the link in which goes to p. 123 of the source, when the required p. range is given as 23–24. Otherwise, sources are of appropriate quality and reliability, and formats are consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, good catch, I copied the ref from an article about another bird (Rodrigues parrot) which was discussed in that page range of the same source, so I will change it to 122-123 instead. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

 * All images are properly licensed, have appropriate description templates, no copyright problems, and although not necessary, ALT text is present too! Support Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Any views on the text itself, ? FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * FunkMonk Now that I came to know one could do any image review and prose review too, I would check it out and by tomorrow have all the issues listed! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hehe, in theory, one could do both a prose, source, and image review (I've often done prose/image). But I think supports can mainly be given based on prose reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol, yeah! In fact, now that you have mentioned it, I would have done all three for you, but seems like source has already been done. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Strong support from Adityavagarwal

 * "...is an extinct species of rail that" you should mention "...is an extinct species of the rail family, that".
 * Added, but I'm not sure about the comma? FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * According to WP:Overlinking, unlink Mauritius and Indian Ocean.
 * Removed, though Mauritus here refers to the island alone, rather than the modern country, which includes other islands. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Links to "zoologist", "palaeontologist", and "ornithologist", although not necessary.
 * Linked, though it seems like overlinking, maybe someone else will remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Any subspecies (I do not think so)? If not, you should mention that.
 * Nope, multiple subspecies hardly if ever evolve on a single, small island... FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Günther and Newton" I think you should mention A. Newton or E. Newton, as it would otherwise create a confusion.
 * Added. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "plumage, perhaps flecked with white, it" I think the sentence should break here. "plumage, perhaps flecked with white. It".
 * Split. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "had a red beak and legs, and a red, naked area around its eyes." I think this should be "had a red beak and legs, and red, naked area around its eyes."
 * I reworded it slightly differently, better? FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The behaviour and ecology section has singular/plural issues
 * Should now be singular. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "island's ecosystem is heavily damaged" instead "island's ecosystem was heavily damaged"?
 * Changed, though it is still damaged. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That is all I have to nitpick. A very well-written article, and a very interesting read. I am feeling to contribute to extinct species! :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Extinct species can sometimes be hard to write about, since little is often known about them in life, and the text can therefore be more about history than behaviour, as is in this article... But I think it's fun to dig through old sources. FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All issues should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support - A very well written article, and an interesting read! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly, FunkMonk! I think I should try an FAC of an extinct species after the current common loon and the next alpine pika FACs! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the double support (first time I get that), and feel free to ask for any advice with the extinct species! There are plenty to go around... FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely, I would ask you for any help! :D I would most probably pick up an extinct species for the next GAN (which would go to an FA hood), so your help would come in handy there! ;) Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Something like Nuralagus rex, a giant, prehistoric lagomorph, might be up your ally... But I can give you many recommendations in many categories, if you don't already have your sights on something. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Support just a few comments.
 * Suggest putting how it became extinct high in the first paragraph. Say the second sentence. Simply that it was through hunting, and possibly the bit about being attracted to red.
 * I've been wary about this, because the reason for its extinction is explained in more detail in the second paragraph, so wouldn't it be repetitive/redundant? FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * " and was named leguati in his honour. " I might make it clearer this was some time later.
 * Added date. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The first sentence in the second paragraph of "taxonomy" might be usefully split.
 * Split. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "in reference to its behaviour towards red objects" Some mention prior to this of what this is would be helpful. The lede describes  the bird  as attracted to red objects.
 * Mentioned "attraction". FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Günther and E. Newton" Why E.? Why not Edward?
 * In this case it's because his first name has already been mentioned earlier in the text. The "E." is just to distinguish him from his brother Alfred ("A."), otherwise I would only write "Newton" on second occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "the overall size of an individual bird or to sexual dimorphism.[8][6] "refs out of order, if you are ordering them.
 * Haven't given order a thought, but changed around anyway here. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "According to the contemporary accounts, " I might cut the "the".
 * Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref #2 likely should have the title italicised.
 * Oops, changed to book template. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all issues should be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber
*" the bird is poorly understood" - not fond of understood here (not as if it's speaking a foreign language!), "known" is better.

Actually that's about all I can see that I'd fix....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the typo fixes! I rewrote that sentence, both to avoid a double "known" in the same sentence, but also because the sentence was misleading, implying the bird was only known from accounts, even though bones are of course also known. How does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes much better. all good now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I did a few other changes too, hope it's fine as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Spot check from Cas Liber

 * Earwig's copyvio inflated by (appropriately attributed) quotation. all good.
 * FN 2 used once, faithful to source.
 * FN 7 used 5 time, faithful to source.
 * FN 13 used thrice, faithful to source.

All checks out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.