Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mountain pigeon/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2023 [1].

Mountain pigeon

[edit]
Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while since I've nominated anything here, so thought I might as well put some of my older articles through here. This is about a genus of pigeons from Indonesia and it's pretty short, so have fun! AryKun (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • List of species: the "Scientific name" column, as well as the scientific name, has a person's surname and a date. What does this indicate? Why are two in brackets and two not? What does the date indicate?
    • Expanded the note to explain this; brackets is already covered in the note.
  • List of species: Is there any rationale for the ordering of the list?
    • As stated at the top of the table, it's in taxonomic sequence.
  • List of species: Would it be possible to write out LC in full, to make it understandable to the non-expert? And why is "IUCN" added in superscript after each status?
    • It's a template, so no; IUCN links directly to the IUCN webpage.
  • Note a: What is a "A binomial authority"? I rather doubt that a non-aficionado will be able to make sense of sentence. Would it be possible to paraphrase it in plain English?
    • Glossed.
  • Could you add the OCLC to Salvadori. (820904343)
    • Done.
  • "And Matthews - 62578303.
    • Done.
  • I note that virtually no OCLCs nor ISBNs are used. Is there a reason?
    • Most of the publications are in journals and so have neither; the books with no ISBNs are very old and wouldn't have those.
For Pereira et al the ISSN is 1063-5157 and the OCLC 9986998490; for Luis et al the OCLC is 8542513730. I have checked as far as cite 15, could you perhaps run through the rest?
  • Is a publisher location available for Gibbs et al?
    • Added.
  • "at least 10–40 birds". "At least" indicates a minimum. It seems strange to follow it with not only a range, but a broad range. Does the "40" indicate the upper end of flock size? Reading on, the form of words in the main article seems clearer.
    • Removed "at least"; I think it reads better now.
I agree :-) .
  • "currently contains four species". You said that in the first sentence.
    • Removed.
  • "All four species of mountain pigeon are medium-sized pigeons". Are any numbers available, to indicate what counts as medium sized in pigeons?
    • Added.
  • "woooooo m". Is the gap before the final letter deliberate or a typo?
    • Deliberate.
  • "pale mountain pigeon near fruiting trees can also have more than 100 individuals." Suggest deleting "also".
    • Done.
  • "making a loud whooshing noise". Is this a vocalisation?
    • Made with wings; clarified in text.
  • "They mostly forage in the canopy". Perhaps an in line definition of "canopy" in parentheses?
    • I think canopy's a common enough word.

Nice work. Mostly nit pickery above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping Gog the Mild. AryKun (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Just the OCLC point outstanding. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, added ISSN and OCLC for all the remaining refs. AryKun (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Splendidly illustrated and is as good a read as such an article can be expected to be. Looks comprehensive and well sourced to my uninformed eyes (and it is reassuring to a lay reviewer when an expert – in this case Jimfbleak – gives the thumbs-up). Only one quibble: I imagine the double plural, Mountains pigeons, in the second para of the Behaviour and ecology section is a typo. Happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 08:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was a typo; fixed now. AryKun (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aa77zz

[edit]

The text looks good, short and sweet. The sources all look reliable but I have some comments on the formatting of the references.

For some journal references the day of publication is specified while for others only the year is given. The article needs to be consistent. The normal convention (at least in academic publishing) is to only specify the year.

  • Ref 2, Jobling. Link is now broken - it should be: https://archive.org/stream/Helm_Dictionary_of_Scientific_Bird_Names_by_James_A._Jobling#page/n182/mode/1up
    • Replaced.
  • Ref 3 Hartert. Better for the reader if you link to the specific page: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/3266906
    • Done.
  • Ref 7 Gibbs et al. The title is linked to Worldcat. I expect a title to be link to a free-to-read version of the document. The cite book documention states "Online sources linked by |url=, |article-url=, |chapter-url=, |contribution-url=, |entry-url=, |map-url=, and |section-url= are presumed to be free-to-read." (In this case the OCLC links to the WorldCat entry and the cite book doc has "It is not necessary to specify a URL to a link identical to a link also produced by an identifier.") The url title link should be removed.
    • Linked to GBooks, where the Gymnophaps part is part of the preview.
  • Ref 8 Goodwin: The link is identical to that provided by the doi. The article is not open-access so the url title link should be removed.
    • Removed.
  • Ref 9 Pereira et al. The link duplicates the doi and should be removed. Instead, as this is a free-to-read article, add doi-access=free to the template.
    • For some reason, the link won't go away even if I remove the url parameter.
  • Ref 14 Beehler and Pratt. The title link is to WorldCat. The OCLC provides this link - see ref 7 Gibb above. The url title link should be removed.
    • Done.
  • Ref 17 Symes et al. The article is behind a paywall and the doi provides a link to the article. The url title link should be removed.
    • Done.
  • Ref 18 Diamond et al. The article is behind a paywall and the doi provides a link. The url title link should be removed. Note also that the archive link is useless as it doesn't provide access to the article - as article was behind a paywall when the archive link was created.
    • Done.
  • Ref 21 Adams et al. The article is behind paywall. The url title link duplicates doi link. The url title link should be removed.
    • Done.
  • Ref 22 Bishop et al. This is an open access article but the website has been reorganised and the url now doesn't link to the actual article. Replace by the slightly modified: https://afo.birdlife.org.au/afo/index.php/afo/article/view/2059/2069
    • Done.

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Is the footnote needed? Such a footnote could be added to practically every other species article...
    • I think it's at least useful in genus articles with a table like this; plus, Gog asked for clarification on these points above, and having it there doesn't hurt. AryKun (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was moved into Gymnophaps as a subspecies of the Buru mountain pigeon in 1927." You state by what authority in other revisions, should here too.
    • I can't quite figure out if Mathews is the one who did it; no sources really track taxonomic history this closely, so I have to figure this out by digging through every paper in BHL and finding the earliest source I can.
  • Give binomials in parenthesis for the other species when you mention them the first time too, now you only do it for the the first mentioned species.
    • Done.
  • "to the fruit dove genus Ptilinopus" and " the imperial pigeon genus Ducula" Is a bit cosnpicuous here that you first time link the common name, second time the generic name. Any reason to not be consistent?
    • Linked common name in both.
  • "distinct species by Frank Rheindt and Robert Hutchinson" No presentation info given about them, unlike most other persons mentioned.
    • Added "biologist".
  • "4 species of which one extinct" Missing "is"?
    • Added.
  • You describe how they differ from other pigeons, but how do the species within the genus differ from each other (all I see mentioned is one species being sexually dimorphic)? I think this is pretty crucial information for a genus article.
    • Added (mostly just copied from the leads of the species articles, but I think it's good enough).
  • Is the size range given applicable to all the species? Otherwise I think they're few enough that they could be given a measurement each.
    • Added in later description of individual species.
  • It seems all of the species have darker upper parts and wings and lighter lower parts, but this isn't stated?
    • I would like to mention it, but the only source that covers morphology for the genus as a whole (Gibbs et al.) doesn't say it, so I'd just be SYNTH-ing together this info.
  • "Tree on which a Seram mountain pigeon nest was found" There is a red arrow on the image, state in caption if that is the location of the nest? Now it reads as if the tree itself is the focal point.
    • Added.
  • "Some species will fly long distances to visit specific species of fruiting plants,[17] while others have been recorded feeding on trees near the coast." Any reason why the specific species can't be named instead of "some" and "others"?
    • Added Papuan for the first statement, but the second statement is from Gibbs, who uses it for long-tailed mountain pigeon. That's since been split, and I can't figure out whether he's referring to Buru, Seram, or both here.
  • "and eating soil" Do we know why it would eat soil?
    • Source doesn't mention it specifically, the wikilink to the article on geophagy provides some general reasons like minerals and stuff.
  • Do any of them have subspecies?
    • The papuan mountain pigeon has two, but they aren't particularly distinctive, so mentioning them would just clutter up an already overstuffed taxonomy section.
  • "are four species of birds in the genus Gymnophaps in the pigeon family Columbidae." I would expect the four species being named after that in the intro, since there are so few anyway?
    • Mentioned in second para, which already covers some taxonomy.
  • Size range could be given in the intro.
    • Added.

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Some ancient sources, but nothing that would go out of date. I presume the somewhat inconsistent indicators (DOI etc.) are down to not all sources having the same indicators. I believe that Gregory Mathews and Ernst Mayr can be linked. It seems like https://www.orientalbirdclub.org/ has copies of its journal articles (Forktail and BirdingASIA), perhaps we ought to link these instead of Researchgate? Source formatting otherwise consistent and I don't see anything unreliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Linked to OBC pdf of the Forktail article; I don't think the OBC has online pdfs for individual articles in BirdingASIA, so I just removed the ResearchGate link because of possible copyvio. The DOI's are missing because the OBC doesn't appear to use any for its articles; also added author links. AryKun (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, courtesy ping. AryKun (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK then, with the caveat that I did not do any spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mountain_pigeon/archive1&oldid=1180966978"