Mauritius blue pigeon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 2, 2013. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The picture here is often claimed to depict a Mauritius Blue Pigeon, but reproductions of it I have seen in books have all been very small and in black and white (Fuller 2001, Cheke & Hume 2008). This full version shows some differences from images based on specimens, and does actually look like a Seychelles Blue Pigeon instead (red forehead, blue feet and tail). Anyone know what's up? FunkMonk ( talk) 17:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mauritius Blue Pigeon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Fuller Extinct":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mauritius Blue Pigeon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Extinct Birds":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs) 10:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The prose in general seems of a good standard. I have listed a few things I noticed below and will look at other aspects of the article later. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Done.
I reworded it, does it also seem strange?.
Done.
I think it's valid, but changed it anyway.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
|p=
and the footnotes will automagically collate as needed.Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Some improvements have been made and the prose is now of a good standard. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | This criterion is met. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | References are correctly laid out. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Article is well referenced. Some page numbers or precise range of pages are unavoidably missing. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Not as far as I can see. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This criterion is met. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | This criterion is met. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article is neutral. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article is stable. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images are in the public domain. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant and have suitable captions. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Article meets the Good Article criteria. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
Hi, you asked me a couple of weeks ago if I could take a look through this article. Sorry I didn't get to it sooner; I've been very busy recently. J Milburn ( talk) 15:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Generally a really, really strong article. I've not checked sources for close paraphrasing, and neither have I done a literature search to check for further material, but, those issues aside, I would have no problem supporting this at FAC once the above issues have been dealt with. J Milburn ( talk) 15:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I can understand where the sidebar graph would be handy in illustrating the differences between living animals, but do we really need it for "extinct"? I think the term is pretty clear on its own, without the need for several hundreds of pixels of "explanation". Maury Markowitz ( talk) 08:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
"Only these three taxidermic specimens still survive.[9]". Reference 9 is Rothschild 1907, p. 163. How can a 1907 book be the source the number of specimens now (in 2013)? Snowman ( talk) 23:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Since a little word said about Cossiny accounts, I got the book "Lost Land of the Dodo: an Ecological History of Mauritius, Réunion & Rodrigues" to figure out where the information is coming from. So, there were two people, seems to be a father and a son - Jean-François Charpentier de Cossigny (the elder) and Joseph-François Charpentier de Cossigny (the younger). The book refers to the correspondence between Jean-François (not Joseph-François!) and Reaumur made in 1737-1755 and published in 1939-1940 (page 100). It also written that "Cossigny also occasionally sent specimens, but there was no systematic collecting until Poivre diverted Philibert Commerson from Bougainville's major South Seas expedition in 1768". Also the letter about "rare" was dated 1755, not 1730s. Citation: "The elder Cossigny wrote in 1755 of the Pigeon Hollandais that, common 23 years before, was now rare because of forest clearance and hunting by escaped slaves where forest persisted" (page 99). Though, I am unable to find any other descriptions of the pigeon made by either Cossigny in the book.-- Vicpeters ( talk) 02:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The specific name was just changed here with no explanation. Is there a citation for this? FunkMonk ( talk) 02:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure it is otherwise an improvement though ©Geni ( talk) 00:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Mauritius blue pigeon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 2, 2013. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The picture here is often claimed to depict a Mauritius Blue Pigeon, but reproductions of it I have seen in books have all been very small and in black and white (Fuller 2001, Cheke & Hume 2008). This full version shows some differences from images based on specimens, and does actually look like a Seychelles Blue Pigeon instead (red forehead, blue feet and tail). Anyone know what's up? FunkMonk ( talk) 17:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mauritius Blue Pigeon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Fuller Extinct":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mauritius Blue Pigeon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Extinct Birds":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs) 10:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The prose in general seems of a good standard. I have listed a few things I noticed below and will look at other aspects of the article later. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Done.
I reworded it, does it also seem strange?.
Done.
I think it's valid, but changed it anyway.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
|p=
and the footnotes will automagically collate as needed.Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Some improvements have been made and the prose is now of a good standard. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | This criterion is met. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | References are correctly laid out. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Article is well referenced. Some page numbers or precise range of pages are unavoidably missing. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Not as far as I can see. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This criterion is met. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | This criterion is met. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article is neutral. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article is stable. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images are in the public domain. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant and have suitable captions. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Article meets the Good Article criteria. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
Hi, you asked me a couple of weeks ago if I could take a look through this article. Sorry I didn't get to it sooner; I've been very busy recently. J Milburn ( talk) 15:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Generally a really, really strong article. I've not checked sources for close paraphrasing, and neither have I done a literature search to check for further material, but, those issues aside, I would have no problem supporting this at FAC once the above issues have been dealt with. J Milburn ( talk) 15:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I can understand where the sidebar graph would be handy in illustrating the differences between living animals, but do we really need it for "extinct"? I think the term is pretty clear on its own, without the need for several hundreds of pixels of "explanation". Maury Markowitz ( talk) 08:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
"Only these three taxidermic specimens still survive.[9]". Reference 9 is Rothschild 1907, p. 163. How can a 1907 book be the source the number of specimens now (in 2013)? Snowman ( talk) 23:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Since a little word said about Cossiny accounts, I got the book "Lost Land of the Dodo: an Ecological History of Mauritius, Réunion & Rodrigues" to figure out where the information is coming from. So, there were two people, seems to be a father and a son - Jean-François Charpentier de Cossigny (the elder) and Joseph-François Charpentier de Cossigny (the younger). The book refers to the correspondence between Jean-François (not Joseph-François!) and Reaumur made in 1737-1755 and published in 1939-1940 (page 100). It also written that "Cossigny also occasionally sent specimens, but there was no systematic collecting until Poivre diverted Philibert Commerson from Bougainville's major South Seas expedition in 1768". Also the letter about "rare" was dated 1755, not 1730s. Citation: "The elder Cossigny wrote in 1755 of the Pigeon Hollandais that, common 23 years before, was now rare because of forest clearance and hunting by escaped slaves where forest persisted" (page 99). Though, I am unable to find any other descriptions of the pigeon made by either Cossigny in the book.-- Vicpeters ( talk) 02:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The specific name was just changed here with no explanation. Is there a citation for this? FunkMonk ( talk) 02:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure it is otherwise an improvement though ©Geni ( talk) 00:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)