This article is about a nice parrot from Tasmania. It's come together nicely and I reckon is comprehensive and a nice read. Have at it. cheers,
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)reply
13th edition of Systema Naturae—worth mentioning that Linnaeus wrote the earlier editions?
not sure how the best way to do it is..is it too far removed from subject. Could described it as Linnaeus' Systema Naturae I guess...?Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)reply
I found Crimson Rosellas in Queensland sometimes to be very approachable, anything on the wariness or approachability of this?
Jimfbleak -
talk to me? 15:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)reply
I find rosellas not hugely bold but not hugely shy either. Have seen a few in Tassie. Did not see anything on this in writing. The main psittacines that are shy are black cockatoos.Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Ealdgyth, two uncontroversial facts referenced to an accepted expert on the subject don't seem a source of concern to me
Jimfbleak -
talk to me? 06:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)reply
You give locations for two of the three "cited texts" but not for Forshaw - consistency.
Support (moral or otherwise) from me. I did the GAN review for this article and my comments can be found on the talk page. Cheers
Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 06:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Comments from FunkMonk
I'll review this soon. First thing I noticed was that some of the captions begin without capital letters? I fixed the taxobox image, but now I see it's in the image under description too, so is it somehow deliberate?
FunkMonk (
talk) 15:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)reply
given they were not sentences, they don't have to start with a capital, but I got called out on that as while ago. Just a lazy hangover from times past and fixed now.Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 21:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)reply
"He based in on the description of la Perruche à large queue, "the long-tailed parrot" by French naturalist François Levaillant in his 1805 work Histoire Naturelle des Perroquets." There seems to be a typo there, but also, if he had a specimen, why did he base the species on a description in a book?
"in --> it" - also good question, they seem to base them on a combination of specimen and non-complying museum description. It's weird. Not sure if the person actually eyeballed the specimen. But this seems to happen quite a bit early on...Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 01:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Seems there are enough synonyms to warrant a list in the taxobox.
On what grounds are the pictured individuals sexed? The dimorphism seems to be very subtle?
the differences in plumage are subtle but consistent if you see them often - females just that tiny bit duller. Also the reddish patches around the face.Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)reply
"They are sometimes share the company of eastern rosellas" Seems something is wrong.
Support - all looks good to me now.
FunkMonk (
talk) 17:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Support Comments from Moisejp
Hi. I started reading with the intention of doing a spot check as you requested (I likely may still be able to do one) but this sentence jumped out at me from the lead: "The back is mostly black and green back and long tail blue and green." I've read it several times and not sure how to parse it. Should this be something like "The back is mostly black and green, and its long tail blue and green"?
Moisejp (
talk) 03:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)reply
"Tasked as the expedition's naturalist, Anderson collected many bird specimens but had died of tuberculosis in 1778 before the return home." May I suggest "but died of tuberculosis"? I'd argue there's no need to use the past perfect here, as the events are chronological as is: 1. he collected bird specimens; 2. he died; 3. the ship returned home.
I'll look at the rest of the article very soon, thanks.
Moisejp (
talk) 05:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Feeding, first paragraph: "It also eats the seed of the soft tree fern... It also eats berries, nuts and fruit... It has also partaken of... It may also eat..." The structure seems a bit repetitive here. Could you consider varying the structure and replacing some of the instances of "also"?
Moisejp (
talk) 01:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)reply
"Birds generally forage in the canopy or understory of forested areas, or in hedges, shrubs and trees in more open areas. They come to the ground to eat fallen fruit or spilt grain in orchards or farmland. They keep quiet while on the ground, and are quite noisy when in trees." Is this talking about all birds, or just green rosellas? If the latter, I think it would be better to specify this. Even if it's the former, it might be better to clarify as well, partly because the next sentence talks about "under 20 birds... 50 to 70 birds" which does seem to be specifically about green rosellas.
Moisejp (
talk) 02:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)reply
"As it breeds late in the season, chicks are often small in the heat of summer and can suffer as a result." I wasn't sure whether this sentence was supposed to be related to the previous one about sunflower seeds, and if so, how. Or definitely how it is related to keeping the birds as pets.
Moisejp (
talk) 02:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)reply
summers are often hot. small/young chicks are more vulnerable to extremes of temperature. Hence, as they breed late, the chicks are at greater risk (as they are younger) if there is a hot spell.Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 05:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)reply
So, it's not related to the previous sentence about sunflower seeds, right? Is it related to keep the birds as pets, which I understand is the theme of the paragraph?
Moisejp (
talk) 06:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Correct - the section is called Aviculture which is "In Capitivity". I could change the header to make it clearerCas Liber (
talk·contribs) 06:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Second read-through:
"The green rosella has yellow head, neck and underparts": A bit awkward because it should probably be "a yellow head, neck" but a doesn't work with underparts. How about "The green rosella's head, neck and underparts are yellow, and it has a red band above the beak and violet-blue cheeks."
"This has since been reclassified as a synonym of P. c. brownii as its status as distinct from the Tasmanian mainland taxon—now known as P. c. caledonicus—has been recognised." Could you consider rearranging this to be "This has since been reclassified as a synonym of P. c. brownii, as its status has been recognized as distinct from the Tasmanian mainland taxon—now known as P. c. caledonicus"? I find this would be less effort for the reader to follow.
There is inconsistent use of the serial comma throughout the article. Here are just a few examples:
(NS) "The green rosella has yellow head, neck and underparts"
(S) "Alternative common names include Tasmanian rosella, yellow-breasted parakeet, and mountain parrot."
(S) "it also eats the seed of the soft tree fern (Dicksonia antarctica), cranberry heath (Astroloma humifusum), myrtle beech (Lophozonia cunninghamii), Australian blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon),[28] silver wattle (Acacia dealbata),[29] and buttercups (Ranunculus)."
(NS) "It also eats berries, nuts and fruit, as well as flowers and new buds of southern sassafras (Atherosperma moschatum), mānuka (Leptospermum scoparium), shining tea-tree (Leptospermum nitidum), swamp honey-myrtle (Melaleuca squamea), Tasmanian bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus), Smithton peppermint (Eucalyptus nitida), messmate stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua), snow gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora), manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis), small-fruit hakea (Hakea microcarpa) and native plum (Cenarrhenes nitida)."
Moisejp (
talk) 02:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)reply
I hate oxford commas but they are very good to slot refs behind...I will have aligned by removing all I could find.Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 06:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm about half way through my second read-through. I may still have more comments.
Moisejp (
talk) 03:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)reply
The lead says "The King Island subspecies has been classed as vulnerable as much of its habitat on King Island has been lost", and thus seems to explicitly say that the loss of habitat was the main cause. The Distribution and habitat section says "It has become rare on King Island, possibly due to land clearing and competition with the introduced common starling (Sturnus vulgaris) for nesting sites." The Status and conversation section says "The King Island subspecies is listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as vulnerable,[32] and its population thought to number fewer than 500 birds.[33] Around 70% of King Island's native vegetation has been cleared, and the remainder is highly fragmented and at risk of too-frequent bushfires." It does not explicitly say the clearing of vegetation was the cause (although, granted, it is implied). Throughout these sections there may be different levels of certainty implied about what the cause was. And I wonder if the cause needs to be repeated in both the Distribution/habitat and Status/conversion and section (but this is a smaller issue).
Moisejp (
talk) 04:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)reply
have rejigged as the connection between loss of habitat and decline is pretty unequivocal in sourceCas Liber (
talk·contribs) 06:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)reply
I still find the final sentence about chicks suffering not clear about how this is specifically an aviculture issue, as opposed to an issue that could also happen in the wild. Plus, as I mentioned, it is confusing as to whether it is supposed to be related to the sentence that precedes it, about sunflower seeds. If it were me, I might consider removing the sentence, but if you are very comfortable that it belongs, that's okay.
Okay, here's the thing. We don't know if it's an issue in the wild but we do in capitivity. Also, I suspect that the parent allow for climate/ventilation etc. in the wild. But again, I can only go on what is in the sources.Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 06:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Those are all my comments. Thank you.
Moisejp (
talk) 05:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm now happy to support this article.
Moisejp (
talk) 06:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Source spot check:
You did a source spot check for my last FAC nomination, and I'm very happy to return the favour here. I checked the first three refs (BirdLife International, Stresemann, Cook) and all the information cited was correct per the sources. I am satisfied and consider the source spot check passed.
Moisejp (
talk) 06:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Closing note: This
candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{
featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the
bot goes through.
Ian Rose (
talk) 13:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.