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 SandyGeorgia 03:57, 22 March 2010 [1].

Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo[edit]

Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because after doing a couple of banksia articles, I felt like doing something which hunts defenceless banksias...but seriously, this sombre bird I meant to do years ago but never got round to it. Anyway, have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just de-linked it the genus has only five species anyway, of which three are in Zanda (which then links back to Calyptorhynchus If the genus page were bigger with a subsection entitle Zanda, I would link to that but it isn't so I won't :)Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media Check: Passed - 6 objects- 5 images, 1 video. All are CC-by-SA or GNU at Commons, are either verified flickr-transfers or self-photos/videos, and have the photographer listed. Good job! --PresN 18:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The body feathers are edged with yellow, giving a scalloped appearance. In flight, they flap deeply... - subject of second sentence is body feathers as written
they --> Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoos Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two subspecies are recognised, although Tasmanian and southern mainland populations are possibly distinct enough to be considered separate subspecies. - I had to read the main section to establish whether the max possible ssp was three or four, what about Two subspecies are currently recognised, although the southern mainland population is possibly different enough from Tasmanian birds to be considered a third subspecies. ?
We had some problems with this - see the GAN - essentially the type of the subspecies xanthonotus was collected in Tasmania, but most of the study on this subspecies has been in SE Mainland Oz. Hence, if separated, SE mainland xanthonotus gets a new name, but it is the research on Tassie birds which differentiates them. I see your point but am trying to keep it as simple as possible yet stick to the sourcing. Let me think on it Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I tried "Two subspecies are recognised, although Tasmanian and southern mainland populations of the southern subspecies xanthanotus are possibly distinct enough from each other to bring the total to three." Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fragmentation of habitat and loss of large trees suitable for nesting has caused a population decline in Victoria and South Australia. In some places at least, they appear to have adapted to humans - Have the trees adapted to humans?
Aha ...too keen with the pronouns again. Clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Superb Lyrebird can mimic its contact call with some success - is this just the juvenile's call? Unclear from text.
no - the adult's actually. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can be placid and tolerate sharing an enclosure with smaller parrots, but do not tolerate disturbance while breeding - two tolerates
changed "tolerate" to "handle" - was debating whether to stick an adverbial "well" in as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the parameter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, and thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an easy fix, so I have added it. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common problem with bird articles. I have tried to limit description material mentioned underneath the subspecies to that which distinguishes each from the other, and the differences that Saunders found to suggest a separation between Tasmanian and mainland southern subspecies, but the last has not been confirmed by other investigations, hence it is not "core" description material either. The last also looks odd mentioned there if we transfer what distinguishes Southern from Eastern subspecies down to the description section either. I have tried as best I can to restrict description material in the taxonomy section to be comparative only (i.e. how they are distinguished). If you can point out exactly which bits are duplicative and hence redundant I can try and address, but I am wary of losing information. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a case of duplication anywhere, but of organisation. Snowman (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you meant duplication when you mentioned the word "overlap" above. In fact Forshaw in his Parrots of the World organises it similarly - that is, the description corresponds to the nominate subspecies, and variations are discussed under the individual subspecies entry (along with range etc.) As I said, much of the material in the subspecies sections relates to the vailidty of the subspecies in general, and hence I feel is better discussed in taxonomy than description. Unless we reduce the subspecies entry to list only, there will just about always be material on distribution, plumage and often behaviour that is contained there as opposed to the relevant sections elsewhere. I concede it is not perfect but do beleive that the way I have organised it is the most coherent and logical way of presenting the information. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general description is after the subspecies descriptions, which seems illogical to me. In my Forshaw 2006 book the general description is before the nominate description followed by other subspecies descriptions. Also there are range details in the taxonomy section, which is not indicated in the heading "Taxonomy and naming". The sections is really about Taxonomy, naming, descriptions and ranges, so I find the heading illogical as well. Snowman (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are there to define the subspecies. Snowman, what would you discuss under the subspecies then if you move all distribution and differences to the corresponding sections? Where would I mention the (possible) differences for a Tasmanian subspecies? In the description section as well or (isolated) in the subspecies section of taxonomy? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See marsh rice rat (article not yet complete) for an example of what I think is close to how Snowman would like to see it: discuss only taxonomy in the "Taxonomy" section and mention the actual morphological differences in "Description". (Either method is fine with me.) Ucucha 13:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The taxonomy section starts with naming and then goes on to explain and describe the birds and ranges and then goes back to naming for the final paragraph. My impression is that the taxonomy section and description section could be better organised and that their content has rather fuzzy boundaries. Snowman (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha, it is very difficult to mention subspecies without resorting to range- and description-based information on how they are defined -I see you have a tiny bit of that in your subspecies bits too. Snowman, now you pointed that out, I have moved common names up next to scientific names, so all name material is together. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I need to sleep now (late here) - Snowman, I take it you'd like to move much of the description material of each subspecies to the description section. I'll sleep on it I have moved most of description of subspecies to description section now.Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the various definitions of subgenus and genus in the group. Apparently (according to wiki genus page) the genus Calyptorhynchus includes the subgenus, Calyptorhynchus (same name as the genus), the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo and the Glossy Black Cockatoo, which should probably be included by name in the taxonomy section for clarity. This would be better than saying "the other two black cockatoos". The ranges of the Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo and the two red-tailed cockatoos overlap, so something might be said about identification. Apparently (in Forshaw 2006), at a distance they can be confused with a flying crow, but they sound different. Snowman (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some identification notes. I don't have Forshaw 2006 handy (I have '78 ed and '02 I have checked at the library). The '78 one does not mention corvids that I can see. You are welcome to add. I will look online too Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"these are distinguished from the other two black cockatoos of the genus by their minimal sexual dimorphism. "; and by colours in tails feathers and colour of cheeks. I think that the taxonomy section needs a copy edit throughout. Snowman (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I rewrote that bit - does that make it clearer? (taxo segment on sexual dimorphism) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While you were doing that I wrote a table from the rather mixed-up version, and I was not aware of the unscrambling that you were doing. I am not sure what to do with the table now. To me the prose in the section is complicated, and an expanded table might help with its intuitive visual layout. Would presentation in a table format be more intuitive than the prose? Snowman (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had a segment of free time. I hadn't thought about a table. The question is, with the description of subspecies, is the description section of this version now a bit too dense and hard to navigate? I am undecided. The table is unusual and needs some polishing. Given there are only two subspecies, I am inclined not to use a table as I do not recall having used them elsewhere in species articles and I do like the idea of conformity. I have to jump off again soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a subspecies table with Australian Ringneck, which you said "Looks great". There are many genus pages with tables of species (especially parrot genera). The Nuthatch genus page has a species table. The table has three rows with the population on Tasmania, but it does not render properly with Firefox. The table is not a finished product. I am not sure if it is best in text or on a table. Awaiting opinions on talk page. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The unscrambled version of the text is much better than the old version I was working on to make the table. I have started a discussion on the talk page to find out if a table would be better than the current text, and the talk page discussion need not be part of the FA nomination. Snowman (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the overall organisation of the revised taxonomy and description sections is reasonable now. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not noticed that. The ones which are page references only I have never used a full stop in past Featured Articles and no-one has ever asked before. There is no reason for a full stop as it isn't a sentence, nor is the number an abbreviation. Refs in cite format appear to get one automatically as a result of the cite formatting. I have no idea why. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-Ahem- you appear to be forgetting a FAC passed exactly 1 year ago today where I mentioned the same thing. I still think consistency is best. Sasata (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think consistency is best, and I think that all the notes should end with a full stop given that the templates automatically add a full stop. Snowman (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Sasata - I had completely forgotten that one. I am happy to oblige if we're all in agreement. Give me a few minutes...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
silviculture is the managment of forests, much like 'horticulture for gardens and agriculture for farms. I agree it is an unusual term (I can't even remember putting it in to be honest), and have changed it 'silvicultural systems' to 'forest plantations'. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked up plantation on the wiki; "A plantation is a large farm or estate, usually in a tropical or subtropical country, where crops are grown for sale in distant markets, rather than for local consumption. The term plantation is informal and not precisely defined." So is this about forests planted for crops? What about natural forests? Snowman (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What we are talking about is a combination of managed forests (where trees are selectively felled) and planted ones too. Plantation is used for planted forests here in Australia, such as here and here. After thiking about it, I've changed it to 'managed forests' - which means any forest whether natural or planted. An alternate might be 'in forests where timber is harvested' or 'in forests where selected felling takes place' or something along those lines. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better than "silvicultural". Snowman (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. Snowman, can you please strike the ones addressed for navigability on this page as it is starting to get long? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised you're noticing this after the number of bird articles you've looked at. It does seem obvious to me that it is length and width as eggs generally have two of the three dimensions equal. I do find this more succinct but have added the words. Do you really think anyone would interpret it as anything other than length and diameter? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was the large size of the eggs that prompted me to ask about the dimensions. I trust that the dimensions are correct. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. I have never seen a Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo egg, but that is what Forshaw says. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means they are nowhere particularly common or prolific, and are generally dotted about the range they occur. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me: "clumped only in certain widely separated regions without any intermixing of the separate populations" = found in isolated populations", and "generally dotted about the range they occur" is something different. I might be wrong but the article seems to indicate that they seem to be mobile and can migrate to populate a different area. How is isolated populations consistent with flocking together in winter? Snowman (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay. They can form flocks but nothing like those of the various white cockatoos, which seem to be more abundant overall. Their movements are not well known in general and some appear to migrate and form larger flocks. I need to go off for chores for much of today. I will be back later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a completely different account in Forshaw (2006), so I have amended the article. Snowman (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Cameron book I have returned to the library now so can't comment. I am just checking Higgins again which is fairly hard to read, but some of Higgins does actually gell with Forshaw about population in centre and limits of range. I will keep reading and add later today. I must have missed that in Forshaw (my Forshaw at home in 1978 which lumps all YTBC and both species of WTBC into one, so is a little concise). I can see other reasons for differing interpretations - they are very conspicuous birds seen and heard from afar, but this is getting off topic. We should go with sources - thanks for checking forshaw 06 Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Forshaw 2006 book is an identification guide and is completely different to his 2002 textbook. Snowman (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you want to have a go rearranging the taxonomy section you are welcome to and we can compare flow later. It really only involves moving half a dozen sentences or so - I am not sure when I will be back. done now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I thought it was clear that we're talking about the subspecies. It appears to have been quickly realised it was the same species. I tweaked it a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - Sasata has obliged below...and now to get to work :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
all wikilinked now Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
all bluelinked. Berserker Range currently a redlink but not for long. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rejigged to clarify that Desmarest named the (new) genus Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rejigged as Funereal cockatoo probably best known of other names - all archaic though, and aborigianl terms now in same sentence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delinked Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
removed stray comma Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
changed to "Male birds of mainland origin of xanthanotus weigh on average…" Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
linked to Mallee Woodlands and Shrublands Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
got what I could Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
clarified cones - old banksia spikes with follicles are colloquially called cones as well Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed Banksia is unitalicized... I was going to "fix" it, but then wondered if Banksia is also the common name? Sasata (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no clear target for gum exudate - no section in eucalyptus either, but others done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
incubation period links to disease latency. others done apart from Psittophagus calyptorhynchi yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
d'oh! found a better source and added geographical variation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be an improvement, and the line may need further improvement to explain what sort of preparations these are. Snowman (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
luckily I found some extra information on what they do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, forgot to update - delinked Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gum (i.e. eucalyptus) plantations are common in Tasmania and parts of Victoria. wil clarify Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
funny. "would" sounds perfectly alright to me here - but I am not fussed about "might" either, so changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fussed myself, but thought that "would have" sounded too definitive. Sasata (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a stub for the wikilink. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(good idea. Hadn't thought of it.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed this (along with some other little issues in the refs). Ucucha 14:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping Circéus for a translation. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, now that book is buried in one of about thirty packing boxes scattered around the house. It will be tricky to address unless I find another page-numbered source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(fixed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(fixed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done 44, 49 - 5? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant #35, fixed it. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A leftover - they were placed in alot of articles but we have more specific refs for same information, so removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Fungal feeding by yellow-tailed black cockatoo.
Author(s): Taylor, R.J.; Mooney, N.J.
Source: Corella Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Pages: 30 Published: 1990
But other than missing a gratuitous fungus mention, I'm satisfied wrt 1b and 1c. Sasata (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, how cool is that!? I have it eating banksias and fungi. Will look into and add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dang - it is a one -page article with no summary. And Corella magazine is not kept at the library I will be near tomorrow :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably be able to get it this Friday. Ucucha 13:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What this cockatoo was doing was: It was stripping pieces of bark (4 x 2 cm) off a dead Leptospermum trunk, which was 5 m high and 20 cm wide, and scraped "a layer of white material about 0.5 mm thick" from the inner surface with its beak. This white layer turned out to be hyphomycetes fungi and slime mould that grew in the cambium of the bark. They cite Peter Brown in Blakers et al. 1984 (The Atlas of Australian Birds) for C. funereus eating eucalypt heartwood, perhaps also in order to eat fungi, and Martin (1979, Biol. Rev. 54:1–21) who said that fungal tissue contains good nutrients. Ucucha 19:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it happened near Togari, NW Tasmania, in Acacia melanoxylon swamp. Ucucha 19:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh! And in a surreal fungoid coincidence, I just wrote about a bizzare-looking species that also grows on and eats the bark cambium! Thanks for finding that. Sasata (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another fine (splendid, superb) bird article, meets all FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

space added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can a chapter be on page 21 and then on page 117, which are not consecutive? Snowman (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are the two (nonconsecutive) pages discussing the genus - see [2] and [3]. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so it is the chapter parameter that is wrong. It would have been a long chapter. As far as I can see the book does not have any chapters. I have replaced the chapter parameter with the volume parameter, "39 (PEROQ–PHOQ)", which is found on the front cover. Snowman (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did the GA review and just re-read the article, but couldn't find any issues that I was unable to fix myself. The paper Sasata found should be added; otherwise it is comprehensive and well-written. Ucucha 14:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both added and reffed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
changed withdrawal to apathy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes. tails is correct. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that read oddly - I have reinserted that para further up again - now we have para #1 which is mostly dimensions and plumage, and para #2 on non-feather attributes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dark coloured oil - it is used as a colour describer - actually, if it is confusing then it detracts more than it adds by its presence, so I'll remove it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 19 March 2010 (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