Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Réunion swamphen/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2020 [1].

Réunion swamphen[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since we've had an extinct mystery bird at FAC, and here's one of the most enigmatic ones. The few things known about the bird are covered here, and there is probably little more that can ever be said about it until a fossil is some day found. Since it is only known from contemporary accounts, most of these are included, similar to how most sources treat the bird. It is therefore rather quote heavy (with commentary on these when available), since merely summarizing them would need unwarranted OR interpretation, and would be less interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

NB: It is my intention to claim points for this review for the WikiCup.

I had a look at this at GA and it seemed destined for FA. Good to see it here and this is a placeholder for me to have a proper look over it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not getting back on this. A series of issues have limited my contributions to Wikipedia in general and reviews in particular over the past few weeks. I shall endeavour to get it done over the next day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've also been busy with other things! FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: Should that be 'previously known as the oiseau bleu'?
English sources as recent as Hume 2017 and 2019 list it as "Réunion Gallinule (Oiseaux Bleu) ", so it would seem it has not fallen completely out of use. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lang template should be used for each mention of a foreign language word or phrase, eg every mention of oiseaux bleu.
Added, as well as for quotes (and Plaines des Cafres, though it does not seem to have an English name), not sure if I overdid it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also considering it akin to the takahe". "akin" is a bit ambiguous; it can mean either related to or similar to. Possibly clarify which is meant?
It could actually mean both in this case, but I just said related to keep it simple. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bird was subsequently mainly considered a member of Porphyrio or Notornis throughout the 20th century" I am not too happy with "mainly", and the whole sentence is a bit clunky. How about 'Throughout the 20th century the bird was usually considered a member of Porphyrio or Notornis'? (I think that "subsequently" can be taken as read.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there were two more contemporary accounts". Is "more" intended to mean 'further'?
Not sure what the difference is, but changed to further. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "yet he considered it to be no doubt a derivative of Porphyrio" Maybe 'yet he considered there was no doubt that it was a derivative of Porphyrio'?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "generally agreed to have been a large, terrestrial swamphen". What does "terrestrial" mean in this context?
That it spent most of its time on the ground, linked to Terrestrial animal. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "The Réunion swamphen was possibly similar to the takahe, and was at times thought to be closely related." Maybe 'and has at times been thought to be closely related'?
Done. By the way, did I get all the captions that are "complete sentences" right with the periods? FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it to me, but what do I know?
Probably more than me! In regard to this "While it probably derived from", should that be "was derived from"? FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first description of the Réunion swamphen is that of Dubois from 1674, which reads as follows:" Optional: delete "which reads as follows".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was said to nest among grasses and aquatic ferns"; "the Réunion swamphen did not inhabit swamps". There may be nothing to this, but I tend to think of aquatic ferns as growing mostly in or on the margins of swamps.
Or waterbodies at least, which we know existed on the plains, temporary marshy pools mentioned under behaviour/ecology, and the brook mentioned in the quote under extinction. The sources don't address a supposed discrepancy, but I think it's because the waterbodies there just weren't swamps. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the crunch point. We have no description of the Plaine des Cafres, the supposed location of these birds, which I think would be helpful. And, for the moment leaving aside MOS:QUOTE ("While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".) I am still genuinely unsure what "The air is very pure, but as cold as winter’s day in England. When the clouds pass over the surface of the plain, they have all the effect of a gentle rain. A brook runs through the middle of it, which is broad but shallow, has a sandy bottom, and freezes in the winter" adds to an encyclopedia article. Frankly, to me this part of the quote reads as waffle, and I fail to see what it communicates to a reader about the topic of the article.

The only description of the area provided by the modern the sources about the bird is already summarised under behaviour and ecology: "At least in the latter part of its existence, it appears to have been confined to mountains (retreating there between the 1670s and 1705), in particular to the Plaine des Cafres plateau, situated at an altitude of about 1,600–1,800 m (5,200–5,900 ft) in south-central Réunion. The environment of this area consists of open woodland in a subalpine forest steppe, and has marshy pools." That's it, which is probably why some of the sources include this quote, which appears to be the most precise description of the area as it was when the bird was alive back in the 1700s... As you can see in the photo under extinction, there is not much vegetation left, but plenty of buildings, so the best we can do to give an impression of it is look to the contemporary sources (which is why I'm reluctant to cut it further, it was already reduced by almost half). FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Description: fair enough. Trying to describe what an area was like 300 years ago is probably bootless anyway.

A cracking article, but you have been let down by your copy editor. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and nah, you had to leave something for the FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, that's all of the routine stuff dealt with. On to quotes. For the moment leaving the MoS aside, could you explain for the hard of thinking - ie me - what "The air is very pure, but as cold as winter’s day in England. When the clouds pass over the surface of the plain, they have all the effect of a gentle rain. A brook runs through the middle of it, which is broad but shallow, has a sandy bottom, and freezes in the winter" adds for a reader? I am making a real effort to understand your PoV, but I really baulk at these sentences in particular. Could you talk me through them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is overly flowery for sure, but what's interesting about it is that we get a description of the climate and environment not given anywhere else; cold, rainy, and with a broad, shallow brook. As Hume 2019 presents it before quoting it: "includes an insightful contemporary description of the Plaine des Cafres, the prime habitat of the gallinule". You could argue it's excessive to quote all that for this information, but I'd argue it is more engaging this way. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you have put your finger precisely on our difference. I do not have a major issue with it being flowery. My point is that we do not "get a description of the climate and environment". We get one person's impression of one day. Perhaps it was mid-summer and that shallow brook is a raging torrent ten months of the year. Or was it the rainy season and it is empty most of the time? How cold was a winter's day in England in 1763 anyway? Even you seem to struggle to interpret it "we get a description of the climate and environment not given anywhere else; ... rainy"; there is no mention of rain, the account is speaking of the effect of the clouds. (Possibly a flowery attempt to describe their cooling effect[?]) Perhaps the brook is fed entirely by snow melt and it never rains there? And much of the quote describes physical features which (I assume) will not have changed ("The plain des Caffres, is formed by the summits of mountains at a very considerable elevation above the sea: it is said to be twenty miles in extent, and is very flat, and without stones. The access to it is very difficult in certain places, though it may be ascended on horseback") not "a description of the climate and environment". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can agree that it's subjective whether the article is better off with it or without? Perhaps the other reviewers, Dunkleosteus77, Hog Farm, and Nikkimaria, have some opinions on this. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can. And I would also be interested in the other reviewers opinions. I would however, above and beyond any question of subjectivity, like to draw their attention to MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, by the very wording, I'd say it's subjective and ambiguous: "try not to overuse them". "Try" leaves choice, and "overuse" leaves interpretation... The question is, when is it "overuse"? Also note that the guideline begins "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." That would imply the limitations are mainly to prevent copyright violations. But given these quotes are centuries old, it should hardly be a problem, FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi J Milburn, I wonder if you have an opinion on the quotation issue, which is, I think, best summarised in the two paragraphs immediately above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overall good use of quotes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find the quote useful. It's one of those things where IMO its ambiguous enough that keeping it in the original words is the best option. The one question I would ask is the season that the plain des Caffres description is suppose to describe. I doubt it's known, although if known it would give context. Honestly, I think since, per the reasons Gog mentioned, it's not a great description of the climactic elements described, so using the quote for the climactic elements actually avoids a bit of drawing too heavy of conclusions based on a singular experience. Hog Farm Bacon 16:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, now it is also mainly used under extinction to give an impression of how the area was in its pristine condition, before humans destroyed interfered. The circumstances around the quote aren't precisely known (not even who wrote it), so info on the season is probably unavailable. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's not a copyright issue, but in terms of style in the case of the particular quote mentioned I lean towards Gog's perspective. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, seems like an even split, then. Could we wait and see if potential further reviewers bring it up? To me, this still seems like a matter of individual taste, not hard policy. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rather like it, for what it's worth, but I certainly wouldn't fight to keep it. I like the floweriness, and I think it's fairly evocative. I quite like a "human" angle in these biology articles; much as I love Ucucha's articles about long-dead mice, they're a little cold when contrasted with this sort of thing. I hear what is said about over-quoting; in my judgment, we're not running up against this here, but it is possible that my judgement is flawed. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FunkMonk: I am still not sure that this instance doesn't fall foul of the MoS, but consensus would seem to be against me. And it is a cracking article, which I have no desire to stall over a quibbling interpretation of the MoS. So, supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I do see your side, and wouldn't have taken it personally if you had refrained from supporting (the harder the FAC, the better the article). So it was nice that others could weigh in so it wasn't just a battle of opinions between the two of us. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • "Visitors to the Mascarene island of Réunion during the 17th and 18th centuries reported blue birds, referred to in French as oiseau bleu" since oiseau bleu means blue bird, it may be better to say "reported blue birds (French oiseau bleu)". Also, you have singular/plural confusion, you say blue birds but say singular oiseau instead of plural oiseaux   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to parenthesis as "(oiseaux bleus in French)". FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "in an old account". FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should already be covered by "Responding to Strickland's book later that year, the Belgian scientist Edmond de Sélys Longchamps coined the scientific name". FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The then recent discovery of the takahe showed that members of Porphyrio could be large" are you talking about the discovery of the bird being recent or it being moved from Notornis to Porphyrio? The next paragraph seems to indicate that many still included it in Notornis until later in the 20th century, so maybe you should say something more generic like "showed that swamphens could be large" or maybe "rails" if accurate   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit complicated, because even at the time, some placed the takahe in Porphyrio (such as Schlegel, who is the one cited), while others placed it in it's own genus, Notornis. I've added "Schlegel argued that", because it was his paper the statement is from, and "(now called Porphyrio hochstetteri, then also referred to as Notornis by some authors)". FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think most (if not all) of the quotes were translated from French, so it would be a bit arbitrary to only clarify that for Dubois (especially since the sources don't always state which other accounts were translated and from what language). But the names and indications of nationalities for some of the writers should give some indication. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is Dubois, mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It resembles a wood-pigeon [in colouration]" contradicts "Olson stated the comparison to a 'wood pigeon' was a reference to the common wood pigeon, implying that Brown described it as smaller than Dubois did"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the " [in colouration]" part? I'm not sure why that is added in the 2019 paper, it is not in the 2008 book the translation is taken from. I have removed it by quoting the 2008 book instead, which should remove ambiguity, but of course still doesn't explain why the brackets were added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not from what I can see, but the sources imply it was more widespread before humans arrived anyway. The IUCN also just shows the entire island:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ZooTaxa source says that Berlioz 1946 considered it a population of African swamphen, and Barré 1996 a western swamphen   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah, I tried to avoid mentioning the relevant specific species and subspecies within Porphyrio because their classifications seem to be in flux (they were considered species, then subspecies, and then very recently species again, see purple swamphen), but it's what I allude to here: "Some writers equated the bird with extant swamphens". To complicate matters further, Barré and a co-author also suggested African swamphens in 1982, while he somehow changed his opinion in 1996. But I've now added mention of specific species. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you italicize everything in French?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was a suggestion by Gog the Mild above, to add the language parameter to all foreign words. I haven't heard about that before, so I can't say whether it's overdone? Perhaps it shouldn't be in the quotes and in place-names? FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you shouldn't italicize place names (otherwise we'd have to say Réunion swamphen)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it earlier after a comment about the same issue below. FunkMonk (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll give this a look; I might wind up claiming WikiCup points for this. Hog Farm Bacon 14:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "since Dubois' account stated the Réunion bird tasted good, which extant swamphens do not" - This just doesn't read right to me. "which" doesn't doesn't seem to fully match with the rest of the phrasing
I replaced "which" with "while", does that look better? FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cattle grazing on Plaine des Cafres was promoted by the French explorer Jean-Baptiste Charles Bouvet de Lozier in the 1750s, which may have also had an impact on the bird". Hmmm. Seems a little to me like maybe this statement should be qualified about if the birds were still in existence at that point. If the source includes that, maybe include such a qualification.
Before that sentence, it is stated the bird perhaps survived until 1763. Shouldn't that be enough for the reader? In any case, it is not known for certain. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in pretty good shape. Not much for a non-expert to gripe about here. Hog Farm Bacon 16:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added one comment above and will try to fix the other tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
Not being a native English speaker, I am not entirely sure which captions are complete sentences, but I have added periods for three captions. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both points should be addressed. but not sure about the first one. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

  • The first sentence of the second paragraph is a bit unwieldy.
Split in two, any better? FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you italicise Plaine des Cafres? We don't italicise place names.
That came from a discussion above about adding a language parameter to foreign words, but since two editors have now questioned it, I'll remove it from placenames. But I wonder if oiseaux bleu should also be looked over? Now it is in italics at every mention, maybe it should only be at the first? FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the italics there are right -- and, if not, it should be none of them italicised. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, removed italics from mentions of Plaine des Cafres. FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the size of their ancestral, wild red junglefowl" Their ancestor, perhaps? This doesn't read that well.
Changed to "the size of their ancestor, the wild red junglefowl". FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species was termed a land-bird by Dubois, while other swamphens inhabit lowland swamps in contrast. This is similar" "In contrast" feels redundant, and it isn't obvious what the this refers to.
Changed to "The Réunion swamphen was termed a land-bird by Dubois, while other swamphens inhabit lowland swamps". FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though it does not describe it, and could apply to other species" Could be clearer
Tried with "though no description of it was provided, and it might refer to another species", not sure if this helps... FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a slightly mediocre point to end on!
Which one? FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point about cattle grazing. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've now rearranged this section so the causes of extinction are mentioned first, and then the quote, which may be the last mention of the bird, comes last, which is probably a much more appropriate note to end on. FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small puzzle: Is the consensus that this bird definitely existed? There was a note about it being a "hypothetical species", but it does strike me that the article is written from the point of view that this is a "real" species.
No sources doubt it existed, but a few older sources have stated it may have been sightings of extant swamphens, and while those are mentioned in the text, most recent sources list it as distinct. I've now added the bolded to Hume's 2019 statement: "Hume stated that while it had been mentioned by trustworthy observers, the Réunion swamphen was "perhaps the most enigmatic of all rails"".. FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all that struck me. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will have a look soon! FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; these improvements look great. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I haven't looked in detail at the sources, but this article looks to be where it needs to be. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I particularly like the new arrangement of the extinction section, can't believe I didn't think of that before... FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

  • All links work and all sources have an appropriate identifier of some kind
  • I spotted no issues of unreliable sources
  • Formatting is mostly consistent – I linked some publishers and standardized ISBNs to fix this.
  • Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2020 (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/Réunion_swamphen/archive1&oldid=985104640"