The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 09:07, 27 August 2012 [1].

Rodrigues Solitaire[edit]

Rodrigues Solitaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have recently expanded it significantly to GA, and following comments from other editors it seems to be close to FA. I will of course implement any further changes suggested here as quickly as possible. I could imagine the extensive quoting might be brought up as a problem, but these are reproduced at length in every book and paper about the bird, so I find them appropriate to feature here, since they are also all in the public domain. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Should be fixed now.
Done.
I don't know, I assume this map was used: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-World-1985.png FunkMonk (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked carefully at the boundaries of the African countries on both maps and I think that "File:LocationRodrigues.PNG" is probably not derived from "File:BlankMap-World-1985.png". It might be one of the other maps in the Commons category "Category:Blank maps of the world for historical use". Snowman (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Done.
Done.
PD tag done, but I'm unable to find info about R. Mintern and G. H. Ford. It should be pretty safe to assume they died more than 70 years ago, having made the illustrations in 1869 and 1879. But in the worst case, they could be moved to the US Wiki.
Not sure what you mean by "US Wiki"? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English Wiki, which has US copyright. Images published anywhere in the world before 1923 can apparently be uploaded here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Thanks, all should be done now, apart from the issues noted. FunkMonk (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made these edits, MoS fixes and some tweaking, please check
The only problem is the caption to the taxo box image, it seems to be creating confusion. Leguat observed the bird in the late 1690s, but his drawing is from 1708, so it was not drawn from life, but from memory. He was the only person who drew it who had seen it. So the take home point is "only known picture drawn by someone who saw it in life", not sure how to word it differently from the original caption, which was "The only known picture drawn by someone who saw the bird in life, François Leguat, 1708".
I've changed "picture drawn" to the more succinct "drawing", is this OK? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea!
  • Genetically related to pigeons and doves—this phrasing suggests that it's related to, but isn't, a dove; clearly not what you intended.
I changed it to "genetically nested within" and "placement within the Columbidae", perhaps not the most elegant wording.
  • What version of English are you using? Mostly BE (grey, paedomorphic) but also "colored"
British, I think "color" was added by someone during copy editing.
  • by Johann Friedrich Gmelin in his edition of Systema Naturae — please clarify, since he obviously wasn't the author of the book
He made additions to it, in the 13th edition (and onwards) he published. I'm not sure how that could be clarified, without going into unnecessary detail. Linnaeus' last contribution was in the 12th edition. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help to say "in the thirteenth edition" instead of "his edition"? The current wording could be taken to mean that he wrote it in the margin like Fermat. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'll add it.
  • measuring 90 cm in length and weighing up to 28 kg), whereas females were 70 cm and weighed 17 kg.—Imperial conversions for the poor old yanks please
Done.
  • ca. 50 g—as above
Done.
  • wrist-knobs (87–90)—the numbers are almost illegible in the image, can you either find another way to indicate the bones, or modify to show numbers in a larger font
I added "in the middle right".
  • Book refs. Either give locations for all publishers or none
I'm adding locations.

Thanks for the review! FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm close to supporting, just wanted to see your views on the two further comments above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks for the changes! FunkMonk (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! So what happens from here? Never done this before. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing all involved the best, DocTree (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • from Amadon, Dean (1951). "Inbreeding and disease?" "Evolution" 5 (4): 417 JSTOR 2405692. Amadon reviews Ottow's German-language paper (pub. 1950, trans title="Hereditary osteogenesis dysplastico-exostotica of the extinct flightless dove, Pezophaps solitaria, from Rodriguez"), which posits that samples of bone fractures represent a hereditary bone disease, rather than (or in addition to) the usual explanation of combat injuries.
  • a more recent source could be used to cite the use of wrist knobs as weapons: "In this species large examples, presumable males, have a considerable enlargement of the distal end of the radius, especially at the base of the fused carpometacarpus. While apparently not sharp pointed, it may well have been horn covered and certainly could have increased the wing's effectiveness as a weapon." From Rand, A. L. (1954). "On the spurs on boards' wings". The Wilson Bulletin 66(2): 127–134 JSTOR 4158290
  • to add some historical context, why not mention Robert W. Storer's theory that the Dodo and Solitaire "be placed in separate monotypic families, the Raphidae and the Pezophapidae, respectively" (from Storer, R. W. (1970). "Independent Evolution of the Dodo and the Solitaire" The Auk 87(2): 369–70 JSTOR 4083934)
  • "The absence of mammalian herbivores on oceanic islands permitted … the solitaire … to attain a large size." (from McNab, B. K. (1999). "On the Comparative Ecological and Evolutionary Significance of Total and Mass‐Specific Rates of Metabolism" Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 72(5): 642–644 JSTOR 316701; this conclusion is supported in Pereira et al. (2007) as well.
  • Pereira et al. (2007) "Mitochondrial and Nuclear DNA Sequences Support a Cretaceous Origin of Columbiformes and a Dispersal-Driven Radiation in the Paleogene" Systematic Biology 56(4): 565–72 JSTOR 20143072 have a chronogram depicting Columbiformes diversification that looks similar to Shapiro et al.'s (2002) cladogram, except that the places of Goura victoria and Didunculus strigirostris are swapped; the article also discusses date estimates for the Raphus and Pezophaps split
  • Hutichinson has an article JSTOR 27826550 that discusses the legitimacy of Leguat's original description. Apparently, Leguat's work was criticized by later authorities, and that history should certainly be mentioned here.
  • Storer (2005) JSTOR 4090609 suggests that the feather-covered risings over each side of the crop (found only in the female), covered glands (or gland precursors) that may have produced just enough crop milk to influence division of labor in parental feeding responsibilities
Author(s): Grihault, Alan
Source: Solitaire: the dodo of Rodrigues Island. Pages: 1–117 Published: 2007 ISBN 978-9990336306
Haven't heard about that book before, looks like a popular work, so perhaps not so in depth?
Title: On the "Solitaire " of the Island of Rodriguez.
Author(s): Mortensen, T.
Source: Ardea Leiden Volume: 22 Pages: pp. 21–29 Published: 1933
I've read that paper before, it doesn't seem to do much other than documenting the existence of a specific mounted skeleton, and disproving a claim that was never made (there's a reply in the end of the paper) "I am afraid Dr. Mortensen is fighting a ghost: I have never expressed any doubt concerning the existence of the Solitaire. My only point was to draw my readers' attention to the non-existence of Schlegel's Leguatia gigantea, a giant in which not even Dr. Mortensen appears to believe."
Done (genetically).
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
I'm unable to find actual measurements, the closest I could find is this statement by the Newtons: "In the largest (male ?) specimens its longest diameter is about half the length of the entire metacarpal, and its transverse breadth in any direction is not much less."
Done, Gennes de la Chancelière, see page 273 here[2]
  • Cheke & Hume 2004 needs to be formatted as a cite journal, with full title, journal name, volume, pages, etc.
Done.
  • page #'s for Strickland 1848, Fuller 2002, Lydekker 1891, Hume & Walters 2012, Rothschild 1907, etc.
Done.
  • journal article titles needs to be consistently title or sentence case, and with Latin binomials in italics (see refs #6, 9); book titles should be title case
Done.
  • 199–199 is not a valid page range
Done, was bot-generated.
  • was really only the first page of the 45 page review by Livezey (1993) used?

Thanks for those suggestions, my main problem is that I don't have journal access, most of what I've used have been books I own, free PDFs scavenged through Google, or papers I specifically asked for on the Wikipedia source request. I'll happily add all available info, but it'll take some time to get hold of those other papers. I'll adress your other points soon, but I have some answers to some of your questions. I used all of Livezy 1993 (half is about the Dodo, and much of it is long tables, which inflates page size), so I'm not sure what you mean. As for Leguat's account having been doubted, that is mentioned under the extinction section, you mean it could be expanded? FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can send the JSTOR articles if you have email enabled. My comment about Livezey reflects the fact that only the first page is given in the citation, rather than the entire page range (some of the other sources only give the first page as well). Sasata (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very helpful, I've received emails through Wikipedia before, so it should work. I think the page number problem is because the citations are bot-generated, I'll take a look... FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and added the jstor citations you listed, as well as a summary of your descriptions of them, but I'll expand them once I obtain PDFs (if there is much more to add, of course). So the main problem now seems to be that I can't find any measurements of the wing-knob... FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found "Independent Evolution of the Dodo and the Solitaire"[3] through Google, so no need to send me that one. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the PDFs, there wasn't much more to add from what I read, but I did flesh some sections out. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, presuming my two minor comments below are addressed. Interesting article.

I will put them into the cladogram next to the binomials, would that be sufficient?
Sure, that's fine with me, but maybe look at a couple of existing species FAs and see what they do - I'm not sure I've seen cladograms with common names, so the convention might be to use the Linnaean names in the text. Ucucha, casliber, sasata or others have experience and might comment <waves hopefully at passing editors> :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I based the mix of common and scientific names on the cladogram in pelican, which was recently featured (Casliber worked on it). FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the mention of small wings, since their underdeveloped state is explained further down in the section. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Hi FunkMonk, I think this is your first FAC? In that case, just like to see a reviewer make a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we look at promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, first one, so that's alright! FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

No issues, except the 1778 date of extinction. Graham Colm (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/106002443/0 "Justification: This species was endemic to the island of Rodrigues, Mauritius, but was hunted to extinction in the 18th century. It was reported in 1761, but had become Extinct by 1778." FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a better link than the one in the article, I suggest you use it instead. Graham Colm (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name is supposed to link to that page, as in the Dodo article, but I'm unable to figure out why the name doesn't become a link in this article. Anyone know what's different between the citations? FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally worked, now the name links to the right page. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the identical text in Graham Colm's 4th article/source pair above is from a direct quote that's properly attributed. I checked .pdf sources that were available on-line back on 5 Aug. Found no problem with accuracy or close paraphrasing at that time. In my opinion, FunkMonk's presentation of conflicting source information, as in the taxonomy, is exemplary. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 17:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that pair was an issue. Graham Colm (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a different note, would it be helpful to have a paragraph in the ecology section here about other extinct species this bird shared Rodrigues with, as in the Dodo article? FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of extinct birds, whose life appearance and behaviour is only known from such contemporary descriptions, I think it is quite different from say, an article about an extant bird, which can be observed today. I see no meaning in closely paraphrasing a text which is in the public domain anyway, and comprehension problems can be solved with square brackets. All secondary sources about these birds (technical as well as popular) likewise quote the old descriptions at length. Even the book Extinct Birds (Hume & Walters 2012), which has very short entries for each bird, quotes Tafforet at length in the Solitaire entry. See also the FA Mary Anning, which uses extensive quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki is an encyclopaedia, so I do not see the point of comparing it with a book. The quotes used on this page are too many and too long. The quotations here are longer than those used on the longer article on Mary Anning. The article about Philip Larkin is long with several short quotations. Quotations have been removed on the Brown Thrasher page and the Western Jackdaw pages. I think that it would be better if the quotations were paraphrased and changed to a more readable and a more concise form of English. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think those examples are comparable. Those are extant birds, so having quotes there does not really enhance the article, as they have been observed and described from life by thousands of scientists, and we therefore have infinite interchangeable sources to paraphrase essentially the same information from. Literature about extant birds rarely quotes descriptions (since they are readily available for original descriptions), but literature about extinct birds almost always quotes contemporary descriptions, if such exist. I think each of these quotes enhance this article, as they are the only contemporary descriptions of the bird in existence, each quote brings unique info about the bird to the table, and each is therefore "precious", so to speak. I know that argument is total pathos, but to ground myself a little, encyclopaedic texts can and do also contain long quotes, see for example this 1858 encyclopaedia entry about the Solitaire and other birds, which quotes Leguat in full (even though space is very limited): [4] That should say something about the value of these quotes. Only Leguat's description was known at the time, by the way. Unlike such encyclopaedias, we have much more space to play with. See: Meta:Wiki is not paper FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that there is of course a difference between an extinct bird which was never described from life by scientists, only laymen (such as the Red Rail, †1700), and more recently extinct birds (such as the Huia, †1907), which were extensively described by contemporary scientitsts. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An example of an article which is problematical because it doesn't incorporate or discuss contemporary descriptions is Great Auk. Practically all that is known about that bird in life is from old descriptions by fishermen and other sailors, not from scientists. Therefore, much of the info presented as fact in the article is really just conjecture, paraphrasing is bound to include interpretation, in many cases suggesting dubious theories, and it is quite "dangerous" to mix the two, since it is misleading. I have mentioned some concerns here:[5] That one "slipped through" the FAC process because yes, there are secondary sources that simply paraphrase the old descriptions, but other sources are more sceptical, which the article does not even try to convey. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found this an intersting discussion. I certainly noticed the extensive quotes and the difference between this and other articles. I liked the quotes, and am generally supportive of FunkMonk's arguments, but i thought a few could be summarised in text instead - the last two quotes in the 'Behaviour and ecology' section, and the first quote in 'Diet' would be my picks for least integral to the article, colourful though they are. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your choices, and have been thinking about it myself. My picks would be the last quote in Behaviour and ecology, and the quote in Extinction, since they do not really tell much new about the bird, and are not as widely cited as the rest. The Cossigny quote doesn't even describe the bird either, so paraphrasing it does not contradict the arguments I presented above. I'm hesitant to remove the Leguat and Tafforet quotes though, which are the best known, first rediscovered, and most widely cited descriptions. They pretty much "defined" the bird for modern science. FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes I mentioned above have now been paraphrased. FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOFULLTEXT says; "Longer texts are best summarised with the full text placed on Wikisource, or given as an external link." Snowman (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is "dun colour"? I think that the readability of the quotes is complicated by the use a sort of English that is not used now. Snowman (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Dun" is often used when describing horses, even in modern times (see dun gene). Nothing that square brackets can't fix. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In present-day language, I presume that "dun" is jargon that usually relates to horses, but this may not be how it was used more than a hundred years ago. People who read the article and the quotes are likely to be interested in ornithology and may not be knowledgeable on horses nor old versions of English language. You replied without actually including an explanation of what colour dun is and the "dun gene" article appears to say that the gene changes the expression of a number of different horse-colour genes, so I am no further in understanding what colour dun is. Snowman (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Modern dictionaries explain "dun" as greyish brown, yet modern sources about the bird seem to describe the "frontlet" as black rather than greyish brown (likely based on Tafforet's account rather than Leguat's, so who knows which was correct?). So as you say, meaning could had changed, and this ambiguity actually strengthens the argument for the inclusion of original text and wording, accompanied by modern interpretation, as explained above. In this way, we do not take either interpretation or original account at face value, and therefore do not present a specific POV. As for the musket bullet comparison, as stated earlier, I can't do much about that, the secondary sources available to me do not specify it further. But I'd be happy if it could be figured out, of course. Note that the bullet issue is separate from the quotation concern, since secondary sources use the comparison even when paraphrasing. Perhaps not even these authors know what is meant. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the use of "dun" can be explained without using a long old quote. The OED might provide the old meaning of the word "dun". Snowman (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not happy that a musket ball and a musket bullet, objects that are not commonly used now, are used to compare various dimensions. Obviously, this makes the article difficult to understand. Surly someone must know how big these objects are and their dimensions should be included in the article. Snowman (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with the musket bullet comparison either, but that is somewhat irrelevant, since it is widely repeated by secondary sources, if not all. Not much I can do about it, unless someone brings forth an overlooked source. Not one of the sources used in the current version mention a specific measurement for the knob. Even if we do find a military history source unrelated to the bird which states the measurements for say, an "average" musket bullet, adding such here would be synthesis of sources, and we don't even know what kind of musket ball Leguat was referring to (there were several types with different sizes). "Frontlet" means the forehead of an animal, here it is meant as the band near the beak. As for quotes in other articles, the problem is that we have no comparable featured articles about recently extinct animals whose life appearance and behaviour is only known from old observations by laymen. The closest is Great Auk, and I have already explained why it is highly problematical that its article lacks contemporary quotes. Furthermore, unlike the Solitaire, the Great Auk's soft tissue is completely known from scores of specimens, and it has an extremely close living relative, the Razorbill, which aids behavioural inference. The Huia and Thylacine became extinct so recently that they had already been described from life by hundreds of actual scientists, so they are hardly comparable (though both do contain quotes). FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page about synthesis of sources is headed "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". I think that the use of a musket bull and a musket bullet was intended to indicate dimensions, so if the article provides the sizes of these ballistics then the position that will arise will be what the original author intended and there would be no issues about advancing a new position. I think that omitting the size of a musket ball and a musket bullet makes the article difficult to read. I think that the article should include the sizes of these ancient ballistics and this would be useful to readers. Have you made any attempts to find out how big these ballistics are? Snowman (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But as I pointed out already, there were many types of musket bullets, which varied considerably in size (see musket). How exactly are we going to determine what caliber Leguat referred to? It is simply impossible (unless we compare one to an actual Solitaire metacarpus, sad to say I've got neither in my possession). At the very best, we could mention what the size range was for such bullets, but that would be fairly useless. See for example these images, the range is immense:[6][7][8][9] Picking one size would be blatant original research. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that attempts made by the authors of the quotations and sources to explain the dimensions are meaningless? I suggest from the way that musket ball and musket bullet are used in the quotations that there is a size or size range that most contemporary people will have recognised as being the standard size of a musket ball or bullet. Culinary and food items are also used to describe things; "the size of a plumb". Plumbs also vary in size; nevertheless, a certain size range is suggested. Please find out how big these ancient ballistics are to advance the discussion here and to make the article less of a riddle. On the other hand, if size comparisons included in the article are simply impossible to understand, then please remove them from the article. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Picking a size is simply original research, not allowed under any circumstances. A plum, just to use your example, hardly varies as much as the sample of musket bullets I showed. And even if we used plums as an example, how would you determine the size of the "average" plum? There are different types of plums, each with its own average size. Your intention is good, but I must object, we cannot be precise here, it would be too arbitrary. As for not including the comparison at all, that would go against every published source about the bird I know of. I must object to that as well. I would like to see further opinions on this. If we really wanted to further the discussion, perhaps we could see if there are measurements of the metacarpus itself, as the Newton brothers stated the knob was half the length of this bone (there are no scale bars in their figures). The power supplier to my PC was fried yesterday, unfortunately, so I cannot look through my sources until next week (I write this from a laptop). I did look before, but never found such a measurement. This paper contains some bone measurements, so may hold the key: [10] FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the photographs of ballistic balls linked above do not prove anything. The musket balls shown in the photographs may not be a random selection and may include selected ballistics of a range of different sizes for illustrative purposes. It would be possible to select big plumbs, middle-size plumbs, and small plumbs and take a photograph of them and it would not clearly indicate what most people think of as an average sized plumb. Finding out more about the facts of ballistic sizes is likely to be useful to research the size of the birds dimensions. I expect that a range of sizes will be a likely outcome and this avoids selecting a particular size of musket ball or bullet. Snowman (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Knob" is half the length of metacarpal, per Newtons
Let's forget the plums and balls for a minute, it is futile. Only realistic chance of getting an exact, reliable measurement (without measuring the knob itself) is to find a measurement of the metacarpus, half of that will be our salvation, as I mentioned above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be possible to determine the size of a metacarpus (five bones in the hand). I presume that this means is the distance across the hand. I note that you have implied above that the size comparisons used in the article are simply impossible to understand, and if this is true I think that these riddles should be removed from the article. However, I think the ancient authors wrote intelligently and that a person knowledgeable on ancient ballistics would be able to understand what the size comparisons with ballistics are meant to imply and provide references. Snowman (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I also stated, practically every single published text about this bird makes the musket ball comparison, even in paraphrasis. However, I am willing to remove it from the main text, as it is already in the Leguat quote, but I'd really have to hear some second opinions first. A single other reviewer has brought up the issue, but never demanded the comparison removed. I'm still sceptical that anyone would be able to decipher the calibre from such a vague statement, but let's see. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been expression my opinions logically and making suggestions, but I have not made a demand for text to be removed. Snowman (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing the sizes of musket balls and bullets, I guess that every text about this bird that makes a size comparison based on ancient ballistics is lost almost all modern readers. The size comparison puzzle may be found elsewhere, but I think that it would be preferable that the Wiki did not include this puzzle. I doubt if any volunteers will arrive here to provide ancient ballistic sizes, but some answers or pointers may be given on inquiring at relevant WikiProject talk pages. Snowman (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This must be one of the longest and most technical discussions I've had on Wikipedia, but also quite enjoyable. I think I'll just remove the comparison from the main text, and leave it in the quote. I hope it will be a somewhat satisfactory compromise. FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think "... about half the length of the metacarpal" refers to a bone in the birds wing and not the bones in the human hand. I note that reference to a musket bullet has been removed from the main text. Nevertheless, I think that compliance with WP:NOFULLTEXT has not been improved. I think that too much of the article is in quotes and that they are written in an old sort of English language that is difficult to read now. The quotes include old language such as "dun" and "frontlet", which I have enquired about above and awaiting elucidation. Snowman (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I like the quotes overall, I'm still of the view that the (very colourful) quote about gizzard stones doesn't add much that isn't effectively said in the existing text, perhaps with a little expansion. I didn't have any difficulty with "dun", which I knew to be a grey-brown colour, and which in contemporary use I don't associate solely with horses, either. "Frontlet" is another matter, but I wouldn't mind a square bracketed explanation. If there isn't a reliable explanation, I would recommend a footnote placed at that point, the text of which says basically "It is not reliably known to what part of the anatomy this word refers". I understand Snowman's concerns, it's just that, on balance, I find this a richer article for having the quotes. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The frontlet issue can be resolved, it can mean both forehead and a sort of headband, I actually think he meant the latter on second thoughts (it referred to the swan like stripe at the base of the upper bill). As for the gizzard quote, I think it is highly notable, as it is the only reason the stones found were even suspected to be gastroliths in the first place (when collected it was unknown what they were). This very passage itself has therefore been integral to our understanding of the bird and interpretation of its remains. As for metacarpal, in birds it is fused with the rest of the hand in the carpometacarpus. But the metacarpal itself can still be separately listed (as it was in the source). FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a list of meanings of frontlet in the OED. The one that I think is most likely is; "b. Ornithol. The margin of the head, behind the bill, of birds, generally clothed with rigid bristles" and the OED gives a quote of its use in 1874. One of the illustrations on the page would seem to confirm this. It can also mean the forehead of animals, a headband, and more. Snowman (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 1907 restoration seems to exaggerate this feature more than is implied by Leguagt's illustration and the descriptions. But perhaps it is supposed to be a male, as it does not show the breast like area. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found this in the source and I have rephrased the article, but it might need rephrasing. Snowman (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity I have changed it to; "... had light-coloured elevations on the lower neck." Snowman (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been careful to avoid white space, and I have not seen any on either my large screen or this small laptop screen (what is your setting for text size?). As for image placement, animals and people should face the text, per image MOS, and that's what I have mainly followed. Alignment also varies to prevent clutter on one side. The quotes in the Larkin article are different, as they are poems, which stretch vertically instead of horizontally, due to the short verses. As for Dodo origins, it was widely accepted they were pigeons already in the 1850s, the DNA study only confirmed it. As for the fruit in the image, Leguat mentions it ate "dates", but that is all. And yes, that study you mention might be helpful, if it exists, and wasn't just a personal comment. The two Newton papers are an abstract and the article itself, but the abstract does contain slightly different info. An elevation is a point protruding higher than the surrounding area. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other reports of elevations on the lower neck? Could it be that the lighter colour there gave the impression of an elevation? Snowman (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nothing is known of this feature beyond Leguat's description and drawing. FunkMonk (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More