Talk:Cuban macaw

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cuban macaw/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I always enjoy reading your articles- review to follow. J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to be back writing bird articles, I haven't written any articles for quite a few months, hopefully we won't be the last bird writers here after the capitalisation thing... FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I deliberately avoided the discussion- I have considerable sympathy for both possibilities, and understand why people may be upset by the result. Hopefully the whole thing can be put to rest now, and any bad feeling will pass. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• The lead feels a little long for an article of this length. Perhaps you could trim some of the physical description, which feels a little detailed for a lead section?

Was the trim by the copy editor enough? FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think Native American is preferred, but perhaps "indigenous Cubans" may be preferable? I'm not sure.

Changed to Amerindians during CE. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "19 skins of the Cuban macaw still exist in fifteen" Inconsistent numbering

Fixed by CE. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Several specimens have also become lost." It's not clear what is meant. Do you mean something like "In addition to the 19 specimens known, several have been lost since the species's extinction."?

Replaced "specimens" with "skins", clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "abraded cranium" Jargon

> Worn skull? FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "The first known fossil was identified by extrapolating from the size of Cuban macaw skins and bones of extant macaws.[6]" Perhaps this could be mentioned along with the description of the fossil rather than at the end of the paragraph? Or are you not referring to the subfossil?

Moved. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "As many as thirteen extinct macaws have at times been suggested to have lived on the Caribbean islands until recently, many of them hypothetical." Very difficult sentence. How about "As many as thirteen now-extinct species of macaw have variously been suggested to have lived on the Caribbean islands." I'm not sure I understand what "many of them hypothetical" means.

Changed to your wording, removed hypothetical. Just means that their existence was hypothetical. FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "named by Rothschild in 1905" Can we have a full name and a link?

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "The reviewer's objection has not been followed since." What does that mean? (I've also restructured the preceding sentences. Please double-check them!)

It means that modern scholars do consider the Liverpool specimen a Cuban macaw. I wrote accepted instead of followed, is it any better? FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "naso-frontal hinge" jargon

Should I remove the measurement? No other words for that feature... FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• " which was a hollow in a palm" Presumably, the nest was built in a hollow in a palm, rather than being identical with a hollow in a palm?

Fixed by CE. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "One subfossil rostrum was found in a cave, though such are usually not visited by macaws, but the surrounding region was possibly a swamp." This needs rephrasing

Rephrased by CE, better? FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "but Bangs and Zappey reported" Full names?

Yep, couldn't find Zappey's full name though, only first initials. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "typical of the Zapata Swamp" Do you mean "as in the Zapata Swamp" or something?

It is a typical feature of the swamp according to the source, but I guess the area in general is meant... Added area. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just as a general note- I've trimmed some of what seemed to be slightly judgmental language. We're (I suspect) on a similar page concerning the issue, so all the more reason for us to avoid saying things that could be considered non-neutral.

Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Parrots are often the first species to be exterminated from a given locality, especially islands." This seems like a pretty wild claim. Could it be backed up a little? Presumably, you mean the first bird species?

The source simply says "parrots and their kin are among the first to be exterminated from any given locality, especially when confined to an insular locality." Added "among". FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Caribbean Journal of Science. 3 44: 287–290." What's going on with that reference?

3 is series, 44 is volume. Remove one? FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Some books lack publication locations, some journals lack publishers. Consistency is good. (I'd recommend losing journal publishes- publication locations for books works either way.)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Greenway, J. C. (1967). Extinct and Vanishing Birds of the World. New York: American Committee for International Wild Life Protection 13" What's the "13"?

Removed, it was "special publication no. 13". FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a solid article. I'm yet to check the images, but I can't imagine that they'll be replete with problems! J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I have to hand in stuff for school on Friday, so a bit busy, but I'll answer soon. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As long as you need; don't worry about it. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• The article just received a copy edit I had requested some time ago. It removed some stuff I wanted to keep, but later today I'll re-add that, and fix your points above. FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • All should be addressed now, not necessarily fixed... FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to go ahead and promote. The article's looking very good, but I'd recommend getting a few more pairs of eyes on it before pursuing FA status, if you intend to. File:Melia azedarach 01434.jpg could do with an English description, but, other than that, images are great. Nice work! J Milburn (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Are you suggesting peer review? FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Peer review can be a bit unreliable. There are a good number of biology editors around who may be happy to take a look through for you- people like Jimfbleak, Casliber, Cwmhiraeth, Ucucha and Chiswick Chap (I'm sure there are others) have all worked on topics more or less like this, so perhaps asking them directly would be good. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the article:

Some issues will be because the documentation of the species is sparse, so this might need to be explained when it is not possible to clarify any further: Snowman (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• A bit more about the circumstances of the old paintings would be interesting. Perhaps, longer captions. Snowman (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What's here is all I could find, sadly... I could add in which publications they originate? Thanks for giving the article a look, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I am half way through the article. I will have a look at some books tomorrow. Were any of the artists travelers that saw living Cuban Parrots? Snowman (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Only the 1765 one under taxonomy, and that was seen on Jamaica, and looks somewhat different (perhaps due to being stylised), so it is not clear what it actually was. The rest seem to be based on specimens in Europe, but the sources don't explain this, or whether they're stuffed or not... FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• The paragraph starting "A hurricane in 1844 is said ...". I think I know what it means, but it could be clearer. Changes from pleural to singular storm is confusing to me. Is a tropical storm the same as a hurricane? A tropical storm = tropical storm, cyclonic storm, tropical depression, or simply cyclone? Says that a hurricane wiped out parrots, then it says one caused them to scatter (ie not wiped out by hurricane). Can you make it a bit clearer? Snowman (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The source specifically mentions both storms and hurricanes, so I guess it is an important distinction. Also, it mentions several, successive storms and hurricanes, so there is no way to really simplify. One storm apparently wiped the macaws out from one area, but subsequent storms/hurricanes may only have damaged the population that remained elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Subfossils found in a cave. Humans sometimes live in caves. It is possible that humans took the macaw bones into the cave? Snowman (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The sources don't say. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• In the same paragaraph: "The habitat of the Cuban macaw was open savanna terrain with scattered trees" and found in "rainforest-like gallery forest". The two locations sound mutualy exclusive, unless I have missed something. Snowman (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Puzzled me too, but the source doesn't elaborate, simply states the bird was found there, and what the habitat was there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• "This practice selectively destroyed the species' breeding habitat, in addition to facilitating the capture of individual birds and accidentally killing nestlings." This is clear, but could you double check this please. Are the trees cut down to capture chicks in the nest, the adults, or both. Would the adults fly away from their tree when it is been chopped down and then falls down? Why did the cruel hunters not climb up the tree and get the chicks out of the nests? My 1980 edition of Fuller's "Extinct birds" says that locals hunted adults for meat and kept young birds as pets. Snowman (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it was to capture the nestlings. The other details you asked for are not discussed... FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I have rephrased it. Snowman (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Consider putting the 1801 Barrbarand painting in the infobox, because it faces into the page. Snowman (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought about it, but the one in the infobox is the most naturalistic depiction, the other one uses hatching, and is quite roughly coloured (which makes it look a bit more stylised), being just a lithograph, whereas the other one is an actual painting...

I guessed that the infobox image decision was based on the quality. Snowman (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Have you got any examples of any zoos that definitely had a Cuban Macaw? Snowman (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll add some... FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I made some changes that should address most concerns. I'll start the FAC now, since it'll probably take weeks before anyone comments anyway, and we can resolve remaining issues in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a nice article. Snowman (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The critically endangered Spix Macaw (5061 words) and the extinct St. Croix Macaw (1349 words) are other longish macaw articles. The Cuban Macaw article (2222 words) is not quite the longest macaw article. Snowman (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I've modified the FAC blurb thing. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning the old name of Isle of Pines (up to 1978 according to the Isla de la Juventud Wikipage), not necessarily in the introduction, but somewhere in the text. It is one of the things that I had to look up some years ago when I read about Cuban birds. Old books use the old name. Snowman (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It is mentioned under distribution. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. I have put a strike though that, because I did not see where it was written. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• "With a healthy macaw population, such events could have been beneficial by creating nest cavities." I find this line a puzzle. Snowman (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It is explained in the sentence that follows. If the population was big and healthy, scattering and culling wouldn't be so dangerous. But with only few individuals left, it would be fatal. The source doesn't go this much into detail, though. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I still do not see anything logical about a hurricane creating nest cavities. I think that is what the line says. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is everything the source says about hurricanes and storms: http://oi62.tinypic.com/ixxcmb.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

To me, it appears to say that storms produce suitable habitat for cavity nesting birds. I have amended the article. Snowman (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the source is a bit vague, so I guess it is better to just write exactly the same as the source. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• The taxonomy section says it has an all-black bill. I would think that its beak was a sort of very dark gray that we take for black, so saying it has an all-black bill would be correct use of every day language. The description section says it has a dark beak, so I think that this should be changed to all-black beak. I did not change this myself in case I disturbed text-source integrity. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

See, that's actually a problem with the sources. They're inconsistent on whether it is "dark", all-black, or has a lighter tip... Not sure what to do with that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at the photograph that I linked in the external links section and I think that you will come to the conclusion that is was all black (or that dark gray that we take for black). I guess, it is possible that juveniles' bills went through a pale phase, at least part of the beak. You could say that the range of colours of the beak in the records as an addendum. I think that it would be ok to use the photograph as a source for the all-black beak. You can make obvious deductions from maps and photographs as RS for text. Alternatively, is there a scientific description of a skin somewhere? Snowman (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have myself speculated that the greyness may be due to bleaching/fading of the old specimens, and may not reflect the life appearance. But I think we can write black/dark with no problem, not sure if we can interpret photos ourselves. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

See this about interpreting images as RS, see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_34#Extrapolation_from_RS. Snowman (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think determining colour based on photos is quite a bit more subjective, perhaps a new thread about this particular case could be started on RS. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Interpreting colours can be difficult from photographs and this may be controversial. Looking at the photo of the skin is only one aspect of considering the article. Anyway, the beak is black, dark-gray or dark. We interpret photos regularly at WP Birds by identifying bird photographs that are not labelled with a species name from flicker. I recall that old skins fade over time, but the overall appearance of a skin would be somewhat helpful. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In those cases we go by certain (rather objective) criteria, written down in handbooks and checklists. We have little to go by in this case. And one photo may not tell the entire story, another specimen may have a grey beak, so how can we be sure our own interpretation of one image even matters? I say leave it to the text sources. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with your scientific approach. Nevertheless, I think that some photographs of things (not necessarily taxidermy specimens) can be a RS when obvious and when not controversial. For example; I would conclude that the taxiderm specimen is set up to look as if it is perching on a branch, and I would not need any text to conclude this. Snowman (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

See for example the two photos here[1], there seems to be a substantial difference in beak colour. I don't think we're in a position to judge which one is "correct". By the way, I had included the Fuertes painting here long ago, but it was deleted even though the author died more than 70 years ago, since it's original publication date couldn't be determined... Boohoo. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I see some variation in beak colours of the skins. The tip of the upper jaw looks pallid on one skin. Presumably the painting by Fuertes was published when it went on show somewhere. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

So why not put in the description; "the bill has been described variously as all-black, black with pallid tip, or dark." or whatever the old reports say. Snowman (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do, it is actually not the old reports that say so, but various modern descriptions... FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Is it better so say bill or beak in the article, or mix the terms. I have changed it to beak for now, but change it to bill if that is preferable. Snowman (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cuban macaw. 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/20140207182726/http://www.auburn.edu/~willi71/carib_parrot.pdf to http://www.auburn.edu/~willi71/carib_parrot.pdf

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) 11:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)