Talk:Broad-billed parrot

Mauritius Grey Parrot

This section should be split from the article as this species referred to Psittacula bensoni (synonym Lophopsittacus bensoni /Thirioux's Grey Parrot) see Cheke/Hume: Lost Land of the Dodo (2008) and Hume: Reappraisel of the Parrots (2007) for reference --Melly42 (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Split declined. Both birds are Lophopsittacus, both are extinct, and there is some uncertainty about if they are related. This seems the most appropriate place to keep the information. SilkTork *^YES! 10:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It is now split. SilkTork seems to have misunderstood the request. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Broad-billed Parrot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maky (talk · contribs) 04:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's only fitting that since I just posted a GAN about a recently extinct animal from a nearby island that I perform this review. I will try to finish my review tonight. If not, look for it tomorrow. – Maky ^« talk » 04:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC) P.S. - Since I know you would be interested, I plan to write the Megaladapis article next.

Comments:

• The description box is needed for File:Latania loddigesii seeds.jpg, and I find it odd that you use File:Gelderland1601-1603 Lophopsittacus mauritianus.jpg (instead of File:Lophopsittacus.jpg) in the infobox when it's labeled as possibly obsolete and is lower quality than the color restoration. (Yes, I realize the color is probably off.. but that could be noted in the caption.) In fact, if you swapped the color one for the 1601 illustration, it would put the 1601 illustration precisely in the section where it's discussed.
• Be sure to use a non-breaking space when you abbreviate the genus.
• I suggest putting "Cockatoo" in parentheses after "Cacatoes" to clarify.
• I'm not sure the "Etymology" subsection is properly labeled. It seems to talk about identification or discovery, with only one sentence dedicated to etymology. It may just need a new subheading.

Otherwise, everything looked good on my first pass. I'll try to review the publicly available sources tomorrow. – Maky ^« talk » 06:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The online sources are limited, but all check out. AGF on the others. Once the points above are addressed, I'll make a quick 2nd pass and make sure everything's okay. – Maky ^« talk » 15:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and I'm looking forward to Megaladapis. I have fixed a couple of things, but I have some questions. What is a description box? Not sure what you mean by non-breaking space. Is the new title for the etymology section alright? As for swapping the images, the 1601 image does not actually contain any inaccuracies (it is labelled possibly obsolete due to being an unaltered "original" page, not because of the drawing, all unaltered pages from the journal are), it is the most correct image known, but it has been misinterpreted over the years (see Hume, 2003, 2007). The 1907 colour restoration actually has many serious inaccuracies other than the colour which makes me quite hesitant to put it in the infobox. It makes the wings too short, head too small, lacks the flattened skull roof, the beak is too gracile, the tail has the wrong shape, and even the crest is too long. This is perhaps because it is a fourth generation copy, the black and white interpretation of a tracing of the original sketch shown further down (which has many of the same faults, the two look more alike than either looks like the original sketch) was actually the most widely circulated image of the bird in the 19th century. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The description box (or information box) I was referring to was this. And this is a non-breaking space: basically a space that doesn't allow the line to end—it would carry the "L." to the next line with what follows it. This is good for scientific names, numbers with units, and any other case where information would be hard to follow without what immediately follows it. It looks like it was already done for the two measurements in the article.

As for the photos, your explanation above is good. Has anyone else critiqued this photo in the same way? If the photo is known to have inaccuracies, it would be good to point this out in the caption and explain it in the text (with a source). It's just best to be clear, since most readers will just skim the article and look at the pictures and their captions. Anyway, this isn't required for GA, but you are a skilled artist... have you considered making your own restoration to fix these problems? That might be perfect for the taxobox at the top. – Maky ^« talk » 23:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you meant on Commons, I thought you meant in the article itself. Thanks for fixing those issues, I'll consider them when writing articles from now on. The Gönvold image is not mentioned in any sources I know of, but the illustration based on a tracing is. So adding such critique might be considered original research. As for an original restoration, I might make one, perhaps if I try to get it to FA or something (though there isn't much more info about the bird available). FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries—sorry I wasn't more clear. Also, good point on the OR. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with refining this further and pushing for FA. Some FAs are short. As long as it's comprehensive and meets all the other criteria, that's all that matters. – Maky ^« talk » 00:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good job. I left some comments above. – Maky ^« talk » 23:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit, November 2012

• Identification and etymology: "They appear in reports published in 1601, which also contain the first illustration of the bird, along with the Dodo." We can improve this sentence. What do the 1601-published reports have about the Dodo: the first description? a description but not the first? the first illustration? an illustration but not the first? --Stfg (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Identification and etymology: I've invited clarification of "some writers continued[Clarify] to argue that the "Indian Raven" was a hornbill" because it would be good, if possible, to state when this argument was finally abandoned, and to identify any recent writers who asserted this. --Stfg (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Description: "The difference between male and female skulls is the largest among parrots" is ambiguous. Does it mean that parrots exhibit the largest difference between M&F skulls, or that the Broad-billed exhibit a larger difference than other parrots do? --Stfg (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Behaviour and ecology: "... the sexes have specialised reproductive roles". Umm, yeah! I assume you mean something other than the obvious? --Stfg (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix those things now... FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Changing "A 2012 genetic study, however, shows that the Mascarene Parrot is nested among the subspecies of the Lesser Vasa Parrot" into "... grouped within ..." doesn't really clarify it. Does the study show that it's one of the subspecies (in which case it would be best to say simply that), or does the nested among/grouped within idea express some more interesting relationship (in which case it needs a clearer description). --Stfg (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It would imply it was a species or subspecies within this group, but I'm not sure if the sources state that specifically. I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"within this group" is very ambiguous -- what group? Today's new wording, "closely related to the subspecies of the Lesser Vasa Parrot", doesn't really add up -- why mention subspecies? If it actually is a subspecies of the LVP, we can say so and we don't need "closely related to"; if it isn't, then even if it's closely related to the species, we don't need the false precision of mentioning subspecies. "closely related to" is pretty vague anyway; how close is close? What precisely does the source say? Ideally, what words does it use? --Stfg (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to fix that one soon, the paper is pretty vague and it seems many have taken issue with it. I will take care of the two maintenance tags first. This article can't get to FAC until the Mauritius Blue Pigeon is promoted anyway, as far as I understand... FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The genetic study says, and I quote: "The extinct M. mascarinus groups within Coracopsis rather than with Psittacula to which it has sometimes been referred (phylogenetic analysis without the constraints still shows this pattern). Specifically, this taxon groups with the lesser vasa parrots, C. nigra. Within this clade the nominate C. n. nigra appears to be a recent speciation, with Coracopsis nigra barklyi, M. mascarinus and Coracopsis nigra sibilans all representing earlier divergences." Later it says this grouping is weakly supported, so I would be very cautious with any specific wording in the article, which is not in the paper. What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, when you posted that I was doing another copy edit and overlooked it. I agree with your caution. The problem may perhaps lie in the words "the subspecies of", especially as the source is written in cladistic rather than Linnaean terms. If you were just to say "most closely related to the Lesser Vasa Parrot", it would be clearer, I think. --Stfg (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, no problem, will do! FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Caption

I understand the sources have to be followed, but perhaps it's useful to point out that the caption in the 1601 Dutch woodcut does not read "Is a bird which we called the Indian Crow, more than twice as big as the parroquets, of two or three colours" but "A bird that we called the Indian Raven, being as large as a parrot, of double colour". To a Dutch reader of the time it would be obvious that the "double colour" would not refer to two hues in the same individual, but to two plumages, indicating either sexual dimorphism or a nuptial plumage.--MWAK (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, sadly the source don't mention this, so not sure how to deal with it... I can see if the translation in Strickland & Melville 1848 is different... FunkMonk (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, Strickland only seems to present a French translation: "5. Est un oiseau de nous nomme le Corbeau Indien,^ ayant la grandeur plus d' une fois que les Parroquets, de double et triple couleur."[1] FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The same source mentions that French, Dutch and German editions were published at the same time. The French text suggests that there were two plumages, one in a two-colour scheme, the other with three colours. The duederley in the Dutch text however, a spelling variant of Low Saxon deuderley, and the equivalent of modern (Low Franconian) Dutch tweeërlei, means "of two types" and seems to refer only to different plumages. It would be interesting to find out what the German text is and in which language the original notes were made. That might also give an indication what was the real size estimate.--MWAK (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

"Double colour" cold not mean "bicoloured"? FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broad-billed parrot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029221247/http://www.scribd.com/doc/88883761/Helm-Dictionary-of-Scientific-Bird-Names to https://www.scribd.com/doc/88883761/Helm-Dictionary-of-Scientific-Bird-Names

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

MOS:WAW to italics on each instance of "referred to them as ..." ? No need to get back to me, marking Satisfactory, unwatching, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You mean for example like "Indian ravens"? Sorry to ping you, SandyGeorgia, but just wanted to be sure! FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

yes, things like that (there are several) ... it is sometimes unclear to me when to employ "words as words", so I left that decision to you. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be on the lookout! FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Tracking of articles with short footnotes to inline citations

I have placed a notice ({{Note short footnote style 3 in use}} at the start of this talk page following other notices. This template provides information to editors perhaps unfamiliar with this article’s style of when to use or not use short footnotes versus full citations, and aids citation editors helping maintain consistent use of this style to know what method citations require adjustment.

Per a conversation with FunkMonk, as of the date of this post I have upgraded his inline plain text short footnotes to this style, and hovering the mouse over short references will display the full citaiton. (Behavior on mobile devices currently is a jump to the full citation). J JMesserly (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)