Talk:Puerto Rican amazon/Archive 1

30mm or 30 cm?

On general description it says "Females and males measure 30 mm on average." I don´t much about this bird, butI belive that 30mm (3cm) is to litle. Can somebody confirm this? Nnfolz 20:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• It was a mistake that has been fixed Joelito 20:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

GA

This is probably not too far off GA, which would be a good place to park before a tilt at FAC...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I bought a 300-page book about the Amazon on February but mid-terms are currently holding me back from doing any significant contributions, I should be able to add a few thousand bytes to this article by this month's end. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Kewl...those are the best kind of resource. It should really romp home at FAC come early march then. I am sure your edits will pop up on my watchlist and it should be an easy run in (be nice to blue some of those redlinks in the meantime...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Elevating to FA has been a goal of mine for some time now. I, however, do not have time nor the resource (the 1987 Snyder book) to complete the task. Joelito (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

CHQ, when you said the Amazon above, you did mean this birdy and not the river didn't you? WP:Birds is quite lively at the moment (you never can tell when wikiprojects go into hibernation like WP:dinosaurs has done this year) so now would be a great time to disgorge some facts into this article for a crack at GA and FA if you have the time yet, as there are a few of us round to help. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 13, currently a collection of several ref points. - page numbers needed. Snowman (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The wiki page on the Red-tailed Hawk lists 14 subspecies. Does the article refer to any particular subspecies? The hawk in the image on this page looks darker than those shown on the Red-tailed Hawk page. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is of B. j. jamaicensis, known locally as Guaraguao, this subspecies is found in the Caribbean, including Jamaica and Puerto Rico. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick notes

One thing I noticed from the briefest of glances at the article, are the words "in size" and "in color" necessary in the lead? Seems like they don't add much info but do add bulk to the wording. delldot on a public computer talk 09:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC) (ok, done) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple more minor things:

• "The wing primaries and primary coverts are dark blue." What are wing primaries and primary coverts? - I tweaked the sentence a bit and linked the relevant terms - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• "The underside of the feathers have a slightly different hue with the wings' underside feathers, which can be seen during flight, being brightly blue with a yellow-green tail." This sentence is a little awkward and confusing. - Rewritten, it certainly was kind of awkward. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This article looks very beautifully done, I hope I get more of a chance to read it later! delldot on a public computer talk 09:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would recommend citing sources for these sentences:

• "Other objectives included the establishment of two separate viable wild populations (500 or more individuals for 5 years)..."
• "A captive population was established in the Luquillo Aviary in 1973... Another was established in 1993..."

Really, I'll cut it out now :P delldot on a public computer talk 09:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm back for two more:

• "the Puerto Rican Amazon declined drastically" -> numbers declined? the population declined? Fixed - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• "A. v. gracilipes inhabited Culebra Island and is unclear whether it was distinct." Not sure whether this makes no sense just because of the awkward wording, or if more information is really needed. I believe Casliber fixed this one - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

delldot on a public computer talk 09:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN notes

First read: Could do with a good copyedit, other than Delidot's points there is some sloppiness "weren't" "didn't", and places where the phrasing was hard to follow or unnecessarily wordy. Drifts to and from plural a bit, eg last two sentences of "diet"

1. intro is a bit short, needs a bit perhaps on evolutionary development and/or behaviour to make at least a third para - Expanded, how does it look now? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Taxonomy; sources for Bodddaert and iguaca would be good if possible. gracilipes bit needs rewording so it makes sense (better?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Why is green plumage camouflage inside the nest(!) but contrasting outside? - The sentence is referring to the bird's behaviour not its plumage, inside the nest the Amazons are secretive, outside of it they tend to be quite vocal. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
4. When in search of food, the parrot groups in pairs with couples and young birds product of the same brood displaying a tendency to stay together I know what you mean, but... - Tweaked a bit, I think the meaning should be clear. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not far off, but I'll have a more leisurely read when I get more time

Thanks for the points, I am a little exhausted at the moment but will attend them early tommorow (Sunday) morning. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused): #It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall: #:Pass/Fail:

If you plan to go to FA, the text is a bit choppy, with too many short sentences. Try to avoid "however", it's usually redundant. I fixed those and some other infelicities on a final ce jimfbleak (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and your help, I still have a few tweaks in mind before going to FAC, perhaps we should also list it a peer review. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

People featured in the text

Taylor and Lack are both featured. Could the full name be included for verifiability. Do these people have wikipages to link too? Snowman (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The first one is David Lack, however the second one is quoted as E.C. Taylor, who wrote a book titled Five Months in the West Indies, part 2 in 1864, I don't think he has a page here, perhaps we should just omit his name. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What was E.C. Taylor doing there? Was he researching the wildlife or on holiday? Is the observation quoted in this book? It might be better to cite the original source. If you can find the relevant 1864 book and check it out, this author could be a reference. It might be in google books. Snowman (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but my guess is that if he is quoted in a book written by several biologists then he was most likely a scientist of some kind, most likely a biologist or a geologist. As far as the book goes I tried to find a copy online since it was written more than a century ago and it is probably in the public domain, but haven't found anything yet. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the citation for Taylor:

• Taylor, E.C. 1864. Five months in the West Indies. Part 2, Martinique, Dominica, and Puerto Rico. Ibis 6:157-173.

It isn't in JSTOR, but I'm sure it should be available at a major library. Guettarda (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction - it is online. I just don't have access. Guettarda (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That narrows the search, now we know that he was an ornithologist and that the "C." stands for Cavendish, now if we can find his name... I will leave a note at WP:BIRDS to see if someone knows that last bit. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently had an MA and was a Fellow of the Zoological Society [1]

Here we go [2] (second hit on google for me): Rev. Edward Cavendish Taylor, MA, FZS. Note that there's also a George Cavendish Taylor, active around the same time - FZS, FRGS. Brothers? And George is writing about five weeks in Florida [3]

Now I feel the need to know more. Who were these people? The death of George's son Launcelot makes the NYTimes society page in 1901 (6th story down). Guettarda (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I must switch my search engine, Yahoo! only brought a lot of random links back, thanks for finding that. They were most likely family, intriguing. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Quotes around "Cavendish Taylor", which gave me the FZS (and the links to George). "Cavendish Taylor" + FZS led me to Rev. Edward.  :) Guettarda (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Departamento de Recursos Naturales?

Isn't it "Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales"? Or has the name changed? (End of this section. Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, although Departamento de Recursos Naturales is a lot more common, I have only seen the full name in official documents like this one. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? I remember it from signs and things in Guánica Forest, although iirc it was DRN in 1995 and DRNA in 1996. Mostly I remember because it confused me (given my poor Spanish)...I read the name as if it was English (Department of X and Y), and was confused at the use of an adjectival form. It was only a while later that I realised that both adjectives must apply to Recursos. Since that took me a few months to figure out, I felt really dumb about it. That kinda thing sticks :)

Another question:

As of 2008, the total population comprises an estimated 34 and 40 individuals living in the wild and a captive population of 143 parrots

The reference cited is undated, but says "retrieved 2006". So is it "as of 2008", or "as of some date before June 7, 2006? Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

At some point before August 2006, actually. I missed fixing that when correcting the populations numbers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"13 individuals in 1975". Is this the wild population? Is the whole paragraph just about the wild parrots? Snowman (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Puerto_Rican_Amazon#Population_and_distribution says 30-35 wild birds. The lead says 34-40. Different source, but the article should be consistent. Guettarda (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought that all of these were updated while working with all the other peer review issues, I hate working under preassure... - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Distribution map

I'm a big sucker for distribution maps, although it might feel a bit odd for a species with such a limited range. Circeus (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to create one for current and former range but have not finished it yet. It will be on the article before it hits FAC. Joelito (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Map finally created. I think we can proceed to FA. Joelito (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Could the historic map be larger? You can't really see Antigua, Barbuda and the VI. While it's nice to see it in context, I don't think the value of including all of the Lesser Antilles and northern Venezuela is worth the loss of detail in the actual range. Guettarda (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For you old friend, anything ;-) Joelito (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Better or still too small? Joelito (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks better. Guettarda (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The thumb format sometimes makes these kinds of image seem smaller due to their shape, I established a pixel size to avoid that and moved it a bit down so it doesn't look cluttered with the ancestry table. The actual image is looking good. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we use a different color for the Virgin Islands? the bird's presence there has been speculated but as far as I know it hasn't been completely proven, maybe classify it as "possible ranges"? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To some extent, a distribution map that covers the whole island is going to be a little speculative...it's probably best to just say so in the caption - "likely" or "probable" historic range. This is interesting - Fig. 1 and pp 42-43. Guettarda (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

Did a review, have a few comments:

• Given that the endangered species article no longer gives lists on its own, the statements that the bird is amongst ten most endangered bird species, even though readily believable, would now require a citation from an organization compiling those sorts of lists. - I am actually having trouble finding such a list, those listing the top ten endangered birds in the US appear common, however neither the USF&WS nor Birdlife International seem to have these on their webpages, the WWF has list but they are divided by behavior (canivore, hervivores, etc.) instead of species.
• "The species could be found at medium elevations in the Guajataca State Forest (until 1910) and the Rio Abajo State Forest (until the 1920s), and at high elevations in the Carite State Forest (until the 1930s)"
  • Reworded this for legibility, but maybe a complete reformulation would be a good idea
• "The flight mechanism involves strokes below the body axis, unlike most birds whose wings flow above their bodies in flight".
  • Is that a characteristic of Amazons in general or just this species? - I am sure that it is characteristic in more than one Caribbean Amazon, but can't really say for the entire genus.
• 'They normally select the fruits positioned near "eye-level"'
  • Theirs or humans'? - Theirs; since they are usually in the canopy its very difficult to actually judge eye-level for a human at such heights.
• The pairing process is unknown; however, new pairs tend to participate in mutual "bowing displays" consisting of partial extension of the wings and full tail expansion.
  • There should be a way to word this without the quotes. - How about: "mutual mating dances characterised by coordinated bows"?
• Consider citing http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=B00L in regard to federal listing of the species. (although it should be noted that United States Fish and Wildlife Service list of endangered species is currently incomplete). - Done

Circeus (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit, I'm quite sleepy but should be able to work the final bits tommorow, my comments here will be in bold text, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made some extra changes to take your comments into account. Circeus (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

10 most endangered....

Weird...[4] here is an article which states the fact as well, but I just realise there is a cite for it so never mind. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Incubation

"The female lays 2–4 eggs that she exclusively incubates for a period of 24 to 28 days..." This may need rephrasing. Does this imply that the female does not leave the nest at all during this time (or only leave on rare occasions when the male has not brought in food or to repel predators)? For some other species of parrots, I think that the female may briefly leave the nest daily for preening, exercise, toileting, and perhaps to mate after incubation of the first eggs has started. It is known how many eggs are laid before incubation is started; this affects the relative sizes of the chicks in the nest. It is also likely that the female stays in the nest almost continuously for a few weeks after the altricial chicks have hatched partly to keep them warm. Snowman (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I directly wrote what the book said, in it there is no mention of any activity outside of the nest during incubation and they say she only leaves it under such circumstances, I know it seems weird but if we take under consideration that the female explicitly depends on the male for food the plausability grows, it would make no sense that the bird wanders out of the nest but doesn't feed. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Exclusively incubating" means that the male does not participate in the incubation of the eggs only the female. Joelito (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"does not leave the nest at all during this time ... or only leave on rare occasions when the male has not brought in food or to repel predators". So does the nest become partly filled with parrot guano? It would make sense that the female leaves the nest to go to the toilet. Is any more known of the nesting and incubating behaviors known from observations of the captive birds? Snowman (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well... I guess only Snyder knows for sure, perhaps we are getting to technical about it the book does say that "females rarely leave the nest, usually abandoning it to repel invaders (not nessesary predators but also other parrots) or to feed if the male disappears, now they don't give any mention to higene but its likely that they may step outside to "drop waste". The captive studies that I have read so far focus mainly on health and reproduction, but there is no mention of nesting habits from what I recall. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it is possible that the book has limitations, and we can not write what is not in a reference. To me, it seems a bit paradoxical that the article goes in to so much detail about when the female leaves the nest without other basic details of the nesting process. It would be useful to report when incubation starts, which, I guess, would be basic information easily determined from the captive population; for example, incubation starts after the second egg has been laid in some of the African parrot species. Snowman (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

specific epithet - frustrated

Arrgh, I looked in my Latin dictionary and have vittatus 'bound with a ribbon, band or fillet', which is somewhat different to a biological latin used here, presumably means 'banded' but would be good to get a book ref for. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I will look it up tommorow, there should be no problem since I need to ask for a book about Román Baldorioty de Castro as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of the Latin epithet in Snyder's book, oddly enough there is a brief explanation of Iguaca's etymology. Are these usually demanded at FAC? Allosaurus doesn't have it... - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

not particularly - was just being thorough, so map is the only thing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, do we think this is ready to be thrown to the lions?

CHQ & Joel? How we feeling about it? It has a map now...one of you wanna do the honours? :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that taking this article to FA has been on Joel's to-do list for a while, he should probably be the one to nominate it as creator, I may nominate if he isn't interested. Anyway, regardless of who is the nominator my involvement in the FAC will remain the same. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ditto, I'll be there to help out and get it over the line regardless of who is as well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I will nominate today. Joelito (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'm watching it, I will begin working with the issues in a few hours after some issues with my PC are resolved and my watchlist is clear, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

author

I don't know if you want to reference Boddaert?

(in French) Boddaert, Pietr (1783) Table des Planches Enluminéez d'Histoire Naturelle de M. D'Aubenton. Utrecht: p49

jimfbleak (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the article complete? (criteria 1b)

There appears to be little mention of major developments on the PR DNER program. Snowman (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am juggling too many wiki-balls again - you wanna post a link and we can all get onto it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an outline here. I am aware that the "Puerto Rican Amazon" wiki article has had a lot of work, but I fear that it needs improving partly to bring it up-to-date and partly to cover omissions. Snowman (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look and add any relaevant information. However, I believe that we should only summarize the conservation efforts. Details are unnecesary for the scope of this arrticl. unsigned edit made at 12:43, 19 February 2009 by Joelito (talk)

Actually, I think that the missing information sounds quite important to the article. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This article has essencially no information about the DNER conservation effort

This article is missing important information about major developments in the conservation effort. It doesn't mention the releases at Arecibo Rio Abajo Forest, the wild population at Arecibo, which now stands at between 34 and 40 or the success of the RA aviary at producing large numbers of birds.

This information can be found at http://10000birds.com/the-puerto-rican-parrot.htm unsigned edit made at 19:23, 19 February 2009 by IP Special:Contributions/66.50.9.238

Are there any other publications about this? Snowman (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

These sounds like serious omissions. Snowman (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowman, you are welcome to try adding this material yourself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that; nevertheless, my role here is as a reviewer. Snowman (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? It's not at FAC or FAR, so just fix it if you think it needs doing jimfbleak (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

On the bird pages my current edits aim to improve and add illustrations across a wide range of bird articles, rather than spending a long time on FAs. I think the article has some omissions and that it may be out-of-date, but I have not done much editing on the page, and perhaps others, who have done an enormous amount of work on the page, are better placed to modify the page. Because of problems on the page, I nearly started a FAR at the outset to inspire modification to the page, but I opted to start discussion on the article's problems on the talk page instead. I hope that the article will be brought up-to-date without a FAR; however, I would be prepared to start a FAR, pending further editing to the article and explanations of omissions, and, at this juncture, it seems to me to be heading for a FAR. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) all this over an update. My problem is I'm unsure whether the blog (which is clearly very well written and fascinating) is actually a reliable source as such, and one of the sources is actually in Spanish (which I can't read). Joelito above has indicated he will take a look at it. Anyway...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I have added one sentence for the 2008 update. I can't read spanish so don't know what it means in the previous clause what the other number refers to. If someone could double chekc that would be great. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The source lists 10 males and 9 females as being released. There are 130 in captivity. The source also claims that there are now 49 wild parrots in the area. This claim seems dubious to me because 22+19=41 not 49. However, there mught have been a 2007 release. I am reading other sources to validate this number. Joelito (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure, but another explanation of 49 is that some of the released birds raised chicks; however, the IP above says 34 to 40 parrots, and the linked ref above says 20 to 28 (50% survival is quoted in Spanish ref). The linked ref says that the new wild population was started in 2006 - the 49 count may be the released total. The numbers may be counts at different times and so appear to be a bit confusing without knowing the full story. I have tried to read the Spanish ref with google translate. Snowman (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the following unclear (or at least difficult to follow) in the wiki article: Which aviary is run by which organisation? Which organisations are taking part in captive breeding programme or parrot conservation (and what are their abbreviations)? Where was each batch of parrots raised for release back to the wild? In which regions where each batches of parrots released? How many parrots are living in the wild or in captivity and where are they all? I think that it does not help the wiki page having conservation information divided under two headings; "Threats and conservation" and "Recovery plan", and perhaps the presentational problems will be improved when published updates become available. Some of the information will need updating regularly, at least annually probably, and I am sure the main editors of the page will be on to any new publications quite quickly. Snowman (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

FAR is jumping the gun, we need a reliable source for this, not the assertions of an anon user and certainly not a blog. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)