Talk:Mascarene parrot

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 Mascarene Parrot'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 "Lost Land":

• From Small Mauritian flying fox: Cheke, A. S.; Hume, J. P. (2008). Lost Land of the Dodo: an Ecological History of Mauritius, Réunion & Rodrigues. T. & A. D. Poyser. ISBN 978-0-7136-6544-4.
• From Réunion Pink Pigeon: Anthony S. Cheke & Julian Hume (2008). Lost Land of the Dodo: an Ecological History of Mauritius, Réunion & Rodrigues. T. & A. D. Poyser. ISBN 978-0-7136-6544-4.
• From Mascarene Grey Parakeet: Cheke, A. S.; Hume, J. P. (2008). Lost Land of the Dodo: an Ecological History of Mauritius, Réunion & Rodrigues. New Haven and London: T. & A. D. Poyser. pp. 37–56. ISBN 978-0-7136-6544-4.
• From Réunion Ibis: Cheke, A. S.; Hume, J. P. (2008). Lost Land of the Dodo: An Ecological History of Mauritius, Réunion & Rodrigues. New Haven and London. pp. 30–43. ISBN 978-0-7136-6544-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

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 ⚡ 01:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

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

Reviewer: Yzx (talk · contribs) 06:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Alright, I'll give this a shot. Comments to follow. -- Yzx (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) Images: File:Mascarinus mascarinus.jpg, File:Mascarinus.jpg, File:Mascarinus.png need additional US license tags (削除ここまで)

Added to all PD images. FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• Sources:

• (削除) Linnaeus, C. (1771). Mantissa plantarum. Regni Animalis Appendix (in In Latin). p. 524. -- extra "in", also, does this have a publisher? (削除ここまで)

Fixed both. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) Hume & Walters doesn't have location and the other book sources do (削除ここまで)

Fixed, London. FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) Maybe note whether the taxobox image was based on life or taxidermy accounts (削除ここまで)

It is not known for any of the images, actually. My guess is it is a dead specimen, but it wasn't stated in the original publication. FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) The Mascarene Parrot was first mentioned in 1674 -- in science? In Western literature? (削除ここまで)

In Dubois' travelog. Clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) and the name is a reference to Pedro Mascarenhas, who discovered the Mascarene Islands -- I realize the islands were named after the person, but the body text says that the bird was named after the islands (削除ここまで)

Ah, yeah, my mistake. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) and when combined with the earlier specific name by Tommaso Salvadori in 1891 -- I don't understand; I thought Linnaeus originated the name? (削除ここまで)

Yes, Salvadori only made the new combination, I'll try to reword it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) Why did some authors think it was a coracopsine? Also, am I interpreting correctly that this hypothesis is no longer favored in modern sources? (削除ここまで)

Genetic data supports it, morphological data does not. I think the early authors classified it as such because of its dark colouration, but I haven't found a source that specifically states this. I'll take a more thorough look. FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Here's the original referral[1], I'll see if I can crunch through the Latin text... FunkMonk (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Now added, some features are not unique to the Coracopsis parrots, such as naked skin near the base of the beak, but the dark ("raven") plumage is, so added that. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) Hume supports -- "supported"? (削除ここまで)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) I'm not getting why the discussion of flightlessness is there, since the Mascarene Parrot wasn't flightless (削除ここまで)

It is because if the bird was flightless, it would had been wiped out by the erupting vulcano. So the fact that it isn't flightless might indicate its ancestors arrived after the eruption, or that it is one of the few species to survive the event. A bit convoluted, but so is the source, which was published before the genetic data... FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Perhaps the paragraph would be clearer if it started off talking about the two hypotheses for the Marscarene Parrot (evolved before/survived volcanic eruption vs colonized island after), and maybe remove the talk about flightlessness altogether, as since the bird was obviously not flightless I'm not sure how it adds anything to the line of reasoning. -- Yzx (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Changed, how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Much clearer. -- Yzx (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) Mauduyt -- first name? (削除ここまで)

Sources don't state it, so I guess it is unknown, same with Feuilly, who the sources specifically state is only known by his last name. FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) The only Réunion species that disappeared after the Mascarene Parrot (削除ここまで) -- I assume this is bird species, since List of extinct animals of Réunion says the Flying Fox survived to later

Good catch, change to bird. FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Quite a thorough article. -- Yzx (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the review, I'll fix the issues now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

The article looks good, so I'm promoting. Nice work! -- Yzx (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, SandyGeorgia, in regard to the double image under description where you left a note, I considered the various options when I did it, and here are my thoughts. 1: the adjacent text talks specifically about Martinet's plate currently placed on the left (this was originally the only image there), so I thought it should be "first", and therefore left where it is now, facing towards the text. 2: The second image is also by Martinet, but isn't actually discussed in the source, but I put it there because it is still relevant to the point about different Martinet plates using different colours, but if I find a different version of the first plate with different colours (which would therefore also face left), I would use that instead. 3: I think it isn't so straightforward which is the "correct" way to make the subjects of the images face in a case like this where they face different ways. I'd argue that the current configuration, where the gallery is right aligned, and the left bird faces the text, but the other one away, is just as valid as one where the left bird faces away, but the right bird faces the text. In either case, one bird faces the text, but in the current version, at least the one closest to the text is the one facing it, (which I think would be closer to "correct"). But in the end, I think it is very subjective in cases like this, and I doubt those who wrote the MOS ever had it in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

Yep, not a concern ... I could see it was complicated ... thanks for the response anyway. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC) [reply ]