Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spotted green pigeon/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2016.

Spotted green pigeon

 * Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a mysterious bird, known from just a skin and an illustration, and only confirmed as a distinct species, related to the dodo, in 2014. In case anyone is wondering why the version of the illustration shown under description appears quite different from the one under taxonomy, and partially contradicts the text, I did contact the author of the most recent article dealing with the bird about it, and he was unaware of the existence of the second version. Therefore, the discrepancy seems to have never been addressed in the literature, and I therefore can't really say anything about it in the article. In a sense, it is therefore "new" to modern science (though not "original research", as it was already published in 1823, but seemingly forgotten since). FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Caloenas_maculata.jpg needs a US PD tag
 * File:Spotted_green_pigeon.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed both. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review.
 * I've fixed this in a few places, but be aware of false titles. This is something that I only learnt about recently, but they're non-standard in British English (which you seem to be using in this article!)
 * Looks good to me, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One thing, "dismissed it as an aberration, perhaps due to not owning a specimen himself." Fuller's point is that Rothschild dismissed the specimen as aberrant because he did not own it, not a specimen. If he owned the specimen, he would possibly have considered it distinct, according to Fuller. So what do you think, can I change it back? FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By all means; apologies for making an inappropriate edit. I note though that sentence as it was written before ("In 2001 Errol Fuller suggested that the bird had been historically overlooked because Rothschild (an avid collector of rare birds) dismissed it as an aberration, perhaps due to not owning the specimen himself.") referred to the specimen, but I wasn't clear on what specimen this was. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Much of that was cut during GAN. Should any of it be put back? FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I confess I'm not fully clear what you mean. With regards to the Rothschild point, you should just specify which specimen you're referring to; I think what you're saying is perfectly understandable other than that. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hehe, not sure what part you don't know what means, but in any case, I guess I'll just say "the specimen". FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which specimen? Davies's? You mention several. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed to "remaining specimen". FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph of the Taxonomy section is a little bit listy- in 2000, this happened, in 2002, this happened...
 * Not sure what to do about that, it basically consists of claims, followed by counter-claims or confirmations... A sort of dialogue of sources. FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As a for-instance, why not change "In 2008, BirdLife International listed the spotted green pigeon as "Extinct" on the IUCN Red List (it was previously "Not Recognized"), due to Fuller's endorsement." to "On the basis of Fuller's endorsement, BirdLife International listed the spotted green pigeon as "Extinct" on the IUCN Red List in 2008; it was previously "Not Recognized"."? Help break up the "In year, x happened" format. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "which does not appear to have had weak flight abilities" So, it was flightless, or it had strong flight abilities?
 * What if I say "diminished" instead of "weak"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's clearer, if you mean to say that it's flight was actually pretty good. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "That the Caloenas pigeons were grouped in a clade at the base of the lineage leading to Raphinae, indicates that the ancestors of the flightless dodo and Rodrigues solitaire were able to fly, and reached the Mascarene islands by island hopping from south Asia" This sentence needs attention. The comma use is dubious, and "at the base" is jargon.
 * Removed the first comma (is that what you meant?) and linked Basal (phylogenetics) and Lineage (evolution). Does it need an in-article clarification of some sort? FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's better. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Latham's slightly extended 1823 description" I don't follow- what's "slightly extended" about it?
 * Clarified, makes sense? It is in relation to his older book. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Most of the literature about the spotted green pigeon" I'd go for "on" or "addression" or "discussing" rather than "about".
 * Took addressing. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The weight has not been recorded" Does your source say that? If not, I think it would count as original research.
 * Gibbs specifically says "Weight unrecorded". FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The lores are narrowly naked" What does this mean?
 * That's what the source says, I think it means the lores are narrow and naked, but not sure why it is worded like this. Remove narrowly? FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One option- alternatively, you could throw it into quote marks. Maybe someone like Jimfbleak or Casliber would be able to help "translate"! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, pinging and . Removed "narrowly" for now... FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The triangular spots of the spotted green pigeon are not unique among pigeons, but are also seen in the spot-winged pigeon (Columba maculosa) and the speckled pigeon (C. guinea), and is the result of lack of melanin deposition during development." are the result, surely?
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The name of the bird mentioned by Tahitians in 1928, "titi", was said to be similar to that bird's call." Granted, but perhaps mention again that this may not be the same bird. Actually, given that it probably wasn't, this doesn't really belong here.
 * Removed, since basically the same information was already present under taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The spotted green pigeon is most likely extinct" Is there really any doubt?
 * Sources say "now almost certainly extinct" and "no such bird exists there now, so it probably disappeared", which is of course because the provenance of the bird is unknown. There is no actual proof that it is extinct, only that it once existed, and we don't know where to look to confirm its extinction. So what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems your wording does reflect what the sources say; perhaps have a think about consistency within the article. The lead suggests that there is no doubt about the extinction. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed intro. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The description strikes me as a little long. If the opportunity arises to trim some of it, I wouldn't turn it down.
 * I've been thinking of this myself, so I'll do it since you also brought it up. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cut one third of the paragraph that describes the specimen. Or do you mean the entire section is too long? FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful. Enjoyable read, and who doesn't love a good mystery? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will fix these soon. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Left some comments- I certainly don't want this to come across as snippy, as I do think the article's a good one! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Any nitpicks from you are welcomed, all should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to hold off supporting for now to see if anything else crops up/to have another look through later, but I suspect I will be supporting soon. If I've been absent for a while, do feel free to leave irritated messages for me... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , based on the comments below, it seems this might be pretty close when the source review is done, any further comments? FunkMonk (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Support. No further objections. I would prefer "flyer" to "flier", but the OED says both are OK, so they're both fine with me. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I snuck it in there anyhow... FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sainsf
This is the most beautifully mysterious article I have come across here. This article hardly has flaws after our detailed GA review (dangerously up to the FAC mark!) Well, I noticed a few things that could be set straight: Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 09:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In Taxonomy, means "spotted pigeon" in Latin. Link Latin.
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * it belonged in the fruit pigeon genus Ptilinopus in 1826, and Johann Georg Wagler suggested that it was a juvenile Nicobar pigeon (Caloenas nicobarica) in 1827. This is gonna be nitpicking. The line could be reworded a bit so that it does not seem it was a fruit pigeon in 1826, and became a juvenile Nicobar pigeon the next year.
 * Added "instead". FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In Evolution, compared the genes gene could be linked
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 *  The Caloenas genus was placed  Can we simply say Caloenas was placed?
 * I added it here because it is a pretty complicated section, and it was a while ago in the article it was mentioned Caloenas is a genus... So just a safety measure for lay-readers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In Description, Most of the literature addressing the spotted green pigeon I assume the literature referred to here is contemporary to Latham's description. Can we say "most of the literature at that time"?
 * It actually refers to most of the literature ever. Very few writers actually made new observations, apart from a handful (which are mentioned). FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then should repeated Latham's descriptions, and did not add not be repeats Latham's descriptions, and does not add? As it is, it seems you talk about the 19th and 20th centuries. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 06:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good question... I think there are two important issues. 1: The following sentence is in past tense. 2: "repeated Latham's descriptions" covers the literature from before Gibbs and van Grouw made their observations, and all the way up to that point (early 21st century). So to me, past tense makes more sense. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we can keep the troublesome line intact and simply alter the next line as This was until Gibbs published a more detailed description in 2001... Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 16:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did something similar, and combined the sentences, how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Splendid. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 17:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * the curator Hein van Grouw Curator of?
 * What if I say "museum curator"? FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's better. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 06:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * the curator Hein van Grouw did so as well in 2014 Could this read "followed by the curator Hein van Grouw in 2014"?
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The surviving specimen Have we stated before in the main text that this is the sole surviving specimen?
 * It said "remaining specimen" earlier, but changed it to "surviving" for consistency. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 *  50 mm longer in life Convert.
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The plate accompanying Forbes' 1898 article Should this be "Forbes's"?
 * Both are correct, but I prefer the version I used, looks less awkward... FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 *  so such depictions are most likely incorrect A bit too strong?
 * "Probably" instead? FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That would look better. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 06:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 *  Forbes had the iris depicted Link iris
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In Behaviour and ecology, can the terms frugivorous, sedentary and nomadic be explained as arboreal has been in Evolution.
 * Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for comments, all should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

All issues I raised have been fixed, and I see no more troubles with the prose. Hence, Support. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 17:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 *  and the Kanaka pigeon appears to have been 25% larger than this. - than the spotted green or Nicobar pigeons?


 *  The underside of the wings are black with browner flight feathers - singular subject, plural verb...

Otherwise .....I think my predecessors have been pretty thorough with finding the necessary fixes...looking good....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Made some changes, does it look better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, support on comprehensiveness and prose from me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Excellent article. I noticed this species when working on pigeons elsewhere, and wondered what it was, all has been revealed. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, glad if anyone learns something new! FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note -- source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been listed under requests for some days. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , the article has now been source reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments. This excellent article calls for a close reading before I comment substantively, but for now I offer three words I noticed at first read-through that could do with the author's attention:
 * taxidermied – a splendid word, but not the Queen's English. The OED specifies "taxidermized" for the verb; the OED's rearguard action to preserve -ize endings is balanced with UCL's "taxidermised", which is what I'd use in BrE. (I see "taxidermied" is acceptable American usage, but we are presumably in BrE, as befits a Scouse bird.)
 * Interesting, didn't now! FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * onomatopoetic – another pleasing construction, but in fact you want "onomatopoeic"
 * Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

More shortly.  Tim riley  talk    11:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nicobar piogeon – I'm almost sure this is a typo, but I don't dare assume. Later: now amended.
 * Lead
 * As the title of the institution is "World Museum", we need a comma between that and "Liverpool" (ditto in the main text below, as the location is not part of the museum's title).
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Taxonomy
 * "perhaps due to not owning..." – creaks a bit: might be smoother as "perhaps because he did not own..."
 * Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "an alternate common name" – if we are in BrE "alternate" needs to be "alternative" here
 * Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "He also hypothesised that the bird might have inhabited a Pacific island, due to stories told by Tahitian islanders..." – this doesn't quite say what you mean it to say. It was the hypothesis not the inhabiting that was due to the stories. (Only someone determined to misunderstand would mistake your meaning, but it's as well to be 100% unambiguous.)
 * Based on stories told? FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Evolution
 * In the paragraph beginning "The spotted green pigeon was shown..." there are 160 words across 7 sentences before we get to the first citation. Do refs 14 and 15 cover all the statements and the one speculation in these 7 sentences?
 * Much the same applies to the following paragraph. Do refs 14 and 16 support all the statements and the three hypotheses in these four sentences? The same goes for the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the Description section. It's fine, of course, to have the citations together at the end of a paragraph (saves smacking the reader in the eye with blue figures everywhere) as long as they support all the preceding statements. I'm quite confident all is well, but I just flag the point up. I see Ian Rose's call, above, for a source review, and I daresay the reviewer will ask the question I've just asked. (If nobody volunteers to do a source review I'll give it a go, but it isn't my area of expertise, unlike some eagle-eyed specialists, so ask at your own risk.)
 * On the two points above, yup, it's all in the sources at the end; these sources (mainly 14) are the only ones that deal with the genetics of this bird, so all the information is taken from them (apart from the short Nature blurb (15) which I threw in for good measure, it doesn't really add anything unique). FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "presumably-coloured eyes" – I'm no expert on hyphens but I don't think you want one here.
 * Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That's all from me. Nothing of any consequence, and I am very happy to support this article for FA.  Tim riley  talk    12:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will go over these soon! And yes, that typo you fixed was a typo.... FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All should be addressed... FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Source review:
 * A courtesy link to the full text would be good for van Grouw. I'm not really taken with the capitalisation of the article title, but, given that it follows van Grouw's own, I'm not sure I can really object.
 * Hehe, interestingly, it seems he made it available there just a few days after I sent him an email requesting the paper (and on the same day he sent his last reply)... So yeah, I can add it now, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * For A General Synopsis of Birds, you provide a DOI and no link; for A General History of Birds you provide a DOI and a link. I can't see any reason they should be different; consistency would be good!
 * Added, not sure why I could't find it back then. FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Concerning the Forbes piece, it seems to be an article in Volume 1, issues 3-4 of the Bulletin. How certain are you that the note is actually by Forbes? I'd be inclined to call it anonymous. Are you perhaps aware of norms in journals of this sort that I am not?
 * Both van Grouw and Gibbs credit him without further comment. Also, the contents page states the volume was edited by him, whatever that's worth (and he makes a note under another uncredited article on the same page). FunkMonk (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, no objection to saying it's by him, but do add the volume and issue number. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Rothschild and Hartert is in issue 2 of volume VIII.
 * Added. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason you provide the full page range of some articles but not others?
 * Which ones? Some of the articles are less than a page long, and some deal with the bird on only one page (Rothschild & Hartert), if that's what you mean. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure. That strikes me as a nonstandard style, but I can't pretend to know norms in every discipline. It's clear and will be helpful for people looking for information, so no objection. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been told in other FACs to use more specific page ranges, so in cases where it is just a note on one page out of many, I guess it easier to find this way... FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You link Fuller's name in the reference, but not the names of any other notable authors. Consistency would be good.
 * Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The date format on your retrieval dates is inconsistent
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

All sources are appropriately scholarly; older sources are used appropriately. I've not done spotchecks. Seems to be very comprehensive- I got excited when I saw an OnlineFirst article, but it just replicated information from Heupink et al. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No further comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  15:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.