- 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 22:18, 7 November 2012 [1].
White-eyed River Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A short article of necessity because this bird is probably extinct, and was only ever found at one wintering site in Thailand. Its scientific name commemorates a Thai princess, and an erroneous identification of a Chinese scroll painting raised hopes temporarily that it might breed in that country. Expanded from the previous GA version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Beung Boraphet" or "Bueng Boraphet"? Sub-article is titled Bueng, but has [[2]] as a source, which uses Beung (?). Could be a spelling variety, but you should stick to one - article has both spellings at the moment. GermanJoe (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn, I thought I'd checked for this obvious inconsistency. I guess it's a question of how people transliterate from the Thai alphabet, "Bung Boraphet" occurs quite often too. However, no excuse for inconsistency, all "Bueng" now, thanks for checking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first sentence of the last paragraph states: "The White-eyed River Martin and Rufous-fronted Babbler are the only bird species endemic to Thailand." However, the Rufous-fronted Babbler article notes (without an in-line citation) that "An extirpated endemic Thailand form was formerly separated as Deignan's Babbler Stachyris rodolphei (Deignan, 1939), but is now considered as conspecific with to Rufous-fronted Babbler." If the latter is the accepted convention, the statement in this article should probably be clarified. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is very poor, inconsistent binomials and Deignan's isn't extirpated. It's true that some sources lump this species, but the IOC World List, the bird project's standard for nomenclature currently retains it as a species, added footnote to clarify. Thanks for the Thai links, which my searches had failed to find, and thanks for comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Comments by Sasata (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- useful lead links?: wintering, plumage, loss of habitat, animal trapping
- "The sexes are similar," in appearance?
- "who gave it the bird its" fix
- "with the White-eyed River Martin probably
being able"
- "It was proposed in 1972" who proposed this?
- "… but this was contested by other authorities." The citation is to a paper with a single author. Does the paper support the use of the plural "authorities"?
- link vocalisations, morphology
- why not include the wingspan, racquet, tail, and tarsus lengths from Turner 1989?
- "Despite the lack of records from China, some field guides covering the region sometimes include this species, since it is the mostly likely breeding area outside Thailand,[27] although it is omitted from the most recent book.[28]" field guides (plural) -> the most recent book (singular)?
- the following literature may have additional information (haven't checked myself):
- Title: Was the 'Chinese' white-eyed river-martin an Oriental pratincole?
- Author(s): Parkes, K.C.
- Source: Forktail Supplement: No. 3 Pages: 68-69 Published: 1987
- Doesn't add anything new, but since the full text is freely available I've added as a ref anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Title: The fate of the 'princess bird', or white-eyed river martin (Pseudochelidon sirintarae).
- Author(s): Sophasan, S.; Dobias, R.
- Source: Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society Volume: 32 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-10 Published: 1984
- Title: When is a species really extinct? Testing extinction inference from a sighting record to inform conservation assessment
- Author(s): Collen, Ben; Purvis, Andy; Mace, Georgina M.
- Source: DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTIONS Volume: 16 Issue: 5 Pages: 755-764 DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00689.x Published: SEP 2010
- I can't access the full text, but the abstract suggests that this is is an academic exercise which presumably is taken into account by the IUCN Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- according to my databases, the Thonglongya (1968) paper is pages 3–10 (not 9–15). Can you check?
-
- Thanks for review and comments, if you think the extinction paper is useful, perhaps you could let know its conclusions wrt this species, and I'll add a sentence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your hunch was right about the paper, nothing worth including here. Added my support above. Sasata (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments by Maky:
The taxobox image File:PseudochelidonSirintarae.svg is based on photos, but the Commons description is not specific about which ones or where they are published. The description appears to match the photos, but if possible, I would prefer to see some sort of reference to published photos so that accuracy can be fact-checked.
- Not my image, but I've added two McClure images to the description which I'm pretty sure are amongst those used. In general structure and plumage, Turner's Plate 1 also agrees. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the taxobox, you list the IUCN conservation status, but cite BirdLife International. I suggest citing the IUCN Red List listing (the original source). There might even be some new information covered in that source.
- Done, although the info is the same since Birdlife does the assessments for IUCN. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, citations should not be needed in the taxobox. The taxobox should be a summary of what is already stated and cited in the article.
- It's standard practice in the bird project, and it's likely to lead to more grief by taking cites out than leaving them in Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The authority for Eurochelidon should probably be noted in the article. The taxobox lists Kitti, so it should probably be stated that he suggested the taxonomic split.
"Although the fact that the first specimens were supposedly collected roosting..." – This sentence is a little long and convoluted to me.
"...and sold them to the director of the Nakhon Sawan Fisheries Station who was, of course, unable to keep them alive in captivity." – "of course"?
"Despite the lack of records from China, some field guides covering the region sometimes include this species, since it is the mostly likely breeding area outside Thailand, although it is omitted from the most recent book." – Which "most recent book"? You were talking about several books ("some field guides").
After reading the body, I feel like the lead was a little too short. A little bit more detail would be nice, considering most people will only read that before they move on.
- With so few hard facts, I suppose one tries not to put all the goodies in the lead. Expanded now Jimfbleak - talk to me?
Otherwise, it's a good article. Just a few tweaks and a little discussion should lead to my support. – Maky « talk » 02:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for review and comments, I think the two reviews so far have certainly added to the quality of the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source/image comments
- File:African_River_Martin_Hartlaub.jpg needs US PD tag
- FN6: not sure series should be italicized here
- FN8: link points to redirect, and who is the author?
- Be consistent in whether "editor(s)" is capitalized
http://www.bird-stamps.org/cspecies/12300200.htm
- I've repointed to here, just showing the stamp, which is all I need this site for. There are several similar sites, and I suppose the commercial sites could be considered more RS than the others, but I'm reluctant to link to a sales site. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting subject. Some quick comments-
- "narrow racquets at the tips" Jargon in the lead
- "and its wide bill suggests that it may have taken relatively large species" Tense
- "The White-eyed River Martin was discovered as recently as" This seems a very strange way to phrase it
- Maybe an odd question to an ornithologist, but if this area of Thailand is not the breeding ground, what is it?
- It's only ever been seen in winter at this lake, so it doesn't breed there. Since many swallows and martins are migratory, it could breed almost anywhere else in Thailand, Vietnam, Burma, Cambodia or China. No breeding birds have ever been found, despite searching in likely areas, and if it's really extinct we may never know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I mean what is the area in Thailand? Would it be fair to call it the "wintering ground"? J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It already says "wintering site" in the lead, and I've added the same phrase to "Distribution and habitat" now. I prefer "site" to "ground(s)", since to me that implies the whole area in which it winters. I'm not totally sure what you are getting at with this comment, so if I've misunderstood again, please feel free to tweak the text. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly what I was going for; thanks. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "contraindication", according to a few dictionaries I've checked, is an exclusively medical term
- "in site in response to persecution" Persecution is a rather loaded term, I think.
- "although it is omitted from the most recent book, the 2008 Birds of East Asia.[32]" Even if that is literally the most recent book, which seems unlikely, that statement will rapidly go out of date.
Other than that, looks strong. J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While it's a shorter article which, by its own admission, provides no information in certain areas, that is completely appropriate for the subject matter. Otherwise, it is well-written and very interesting. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 7 November 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.
