Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fauna of Puerto Rico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Fauna of Puerto Rico

I have been working on this article since August and I believe it meets all FA criteria. It has an archived peer review which was of great help. I will try to address objections and comments as soon as I can. Joelito (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me be the first to offer my support on this great article. This has been gone over by many, and I'll try to give one more read through myself, but this now meets writing quality, comprehensiveness, and referencing. Excellent pics to accompany the text. One thing: is the Smithsonian pic (Parnell's Mustached Bat) OK? Wiki does not allow stuff with education/non-commercial only tagging, AFAIK. Marskell 00:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgot about that pic. Pic changed to a free one. Joelito (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, just a few comments:

  1. why a random list of a specific group of birds at the end? Why not any other group?
    • I have removed the raptor list. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. same with the full list of bats? Kind of out of place, just make a small subarticle, list of mammels of ....
    • For now I prefer to have the list in this article. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. split Amphibians and reptiles.
    • I would prefer to have amphibians and reptiles together. Authorities usually discuss them as a single group. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I will make some small changes in the article itself. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, really well done. I disagree with a spilt for reptiles and amphibians, the herp grouping works well for this kind of article. --Peta 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - great work, but there are a few places that could use improvement
    • The writing needs tightening up in a few places
    • Mammals
      • "Indigenous settlers first introduced dogs and guinea pigs ... Taínos introduced hutias..." - this may be confusing to readers unfamiliar with prevailing ideas about indigenous colonisation. Is the introduction of dogs and guinea pigs linked to Archaic/Ortoirid or Saladoid cultures, or is it uncertain?
      • "Other species such as Black Rats (Rattus rattus), the Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus) and house mice" - this sentance changes from plural to singular back to plural twice (rats to rat to mice).
        • Fixed, all plural now. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Mongoose introduction: this reads like it was only tied to the decline of two species of bird (one established, one possible). Aren't there more, at least possibles (like the PR Nightjar)? What about herps - is there anything tying to mongoose to herp declines in PR?
        • Predation by the mongoose is a probable cause (Wetmore, 1927) of the initial population decline of the PR Nightjar (pre 1961). However a study conducted afterwards (1991) found that the ranges of the mongoose and the nightjar rarely overlap and the stomach contents of several mongooses did not contain bird remains. The stomachs contained plant material, insects, centipedes, reptiles, and rats. However in the same study mongooses were observed carrying a Greater Antillean Grackle and a Common Ground Dove. I (and the authors) see no firm evidence to presetnyl assign the mongoose as a cause for the nightjar. Wetmore (1927) atributted the decline of the Quail Dove, the Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) and West Indian Nighthawk (Chordeiles gundlachii) to the mongoose.
        • The Indian Mongoose has been implicated in the decline of the Puerto Rican Boa but again no sound evidence has been collected.
        • So what conclusions can I make? What can I add to the article? Can we trust Wetmore's conclusions? Do we only add recent research? The species is suspected of predating on many animals but evidence has been inconclusive as to the extent of the impact to the Puerto Rican fauna.Joelito (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • In the section on manatees, CSN is mentioned, but the full name doesn't appear to be spelt out - is this the Caribbean Stranding Network?
        • It was indeed tha Carribean Stranding Network. It has been spelled now. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Bats - has anyone actually made the isolation argument for bats? Are the Jamaican bats, for example, lower in endemics? What about the fossil bat fauna? How many extinct species are known?
        • Fossil records show 3 more species. This is mentioned in the lead paragarph of the mammal section. "Fossil records show the existence of one shrew (Puerto Rican shrew, Nesophontes edithae), one sloth (Puerto Rican Sloth),[13] three leaf-nosed bats, and five rodents." Do you suggest adding the info to the bat section? Joelito (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Herps:
      • "The West Indian terrestrial reptile clade is believed to have arrived from a single dispersion by flotsam from South America around 25 to 30 Ma" - this doesn't make sense to me. Single disperal event? That would mean a single common ancestor for Epicrates and Cyclura (among others)?
        • Whoa. Big time screw up. That refers only to Ameiva. I will correct this. It is, obviously, more complicated than that. I will rewrite that sentence using Hedges 2006. [1] He goes into some detail on herp origin. Joelito (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • While you mentioned Cyclura cornuta stejnegeri, you didn't mention Cyclura pinguis which, although extinct outside of Anegada would have probably been one of the top herbivores in Puerto Rico prior to extirpation
        • C. pinguis is now metioned in the article. Joelito (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Inverts: what about the freshwater shrimp and aquatic insects?
      • I have very little on this? You got anything? Joelito (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I am trying to track down some sources. Guettarda 06:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda 04:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • As always thank you for your comments Guettarda. I will be working on your suggestions soon. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wonderful article. The "Rock samples from Sierra Bermeja...." sentence still needs citation, please find one ASAP. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I have added the ref. Funny thing, that was my own comment. I had gathered the information but forgot to write down where I obtained it from. Joelito (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I really like it but don't you think a couple of "interwikis" may be required? Congratulations!--Gustavo86 04:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I have searched for interwiki links, and found none for this exact title so far. Moreover, there is no FA requirement of interwiki links. -Fsotrain09 19:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support—This is good stuff indeed. (I should disclose that I've copy-edited it by request, but heck, it didn't need much changing.) Tony 07:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A few things I noticed:
  1. "The fauna of Puerto Rico, similar to other island archipelago faunas" - wouldn't "like" be better than "similar to"?
    • It was my understanding that these were synonyms. Am I incorrect? Joelito (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. "The native fauna of Puerto Rico consist of" - elsewhere in the article you treat "fauna" as singular.
    • I initially treated it as singular, it was changed by someone to plural. Which is correct? Joelito (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It is usually treated as a singular. Rhion 17:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. "Of the 349 bird species, about 120 birds breed in the archipelago" - "birds" is redundant here
    • Agree. Fixed. Joelito (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. "Hunting, habitat destruction, and the introduction of non-native species led to extinctions and extirpations." - "extinctions" and "extirpations" are both linked to Extinction, which is not very useful if you click on both to find out the difference
    • The Extirpation article was recently changed to a redirect. [2] I will try to talk with the person who changed it to see if we can leave the stub definition. Joelito (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. (Birds)"Puerto Rico's avifauna has been diminished due to extinction, either by natural forces, mankind's intervention, or extirpation" - what is the difference between "mankind's intervention" and "extirpation"?
    • This sentence is missing an "or". It shoud say "Puerto Rico's avifauna has been diminished due to extinction, either by natural forces, or mankind's intervention, or extirpation". Is it better that way? Joelito (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. (Invertebrates)"It is believed that most of this fauna arrived at Puerto Rico in the Pleitocene" - should this be "Pleistocene"? Rhion 21:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It should be Pleistocene. Fixed. Joelito (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the article. Joelito (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Support. Just one more point though: (Birds) Almost half of the species (166) are accidental, meaning that they have been sighted only once or twice - this implies that if the species is sighted for a third time its status would no longer be "accidental". This doesn't correspond to any definition of "accidental" that I am aware of, though I don't know how the term is defined in Puerto Rico. Rhion 14:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I did a brief copy edit on the article, but don't know the material, so didn't actually do very much. Very nice article, confident that any minor issues raised will be easily corrected. Sandy 23:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I made few minor changes (reworded point 5 from Rhion above), but generally it is a good balanced article. A few minor niggles:
  1. "Bats are the only extant native terrestrial mammals" - they might be classed as terrestrial mammals but this sentence looks strange, especially as "other terrestrial mammals" is repeated in the next sentence.
    • The important word here is native. The other terrestrial mammals are introduced. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I was referring to the use of "terrestrial" with "bats", but I suppose we don't refer to "aerial mammals" (though I will be writing to Nature to suggest that). Yomanganitalk 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. "The low richness-high diversity pattern is also apparent among invertebrates" - this is the first we've heard of a "low richness-high diversity pattern", so why is "also" in there?
    • The opening sentence, "The fauna of Puerto Rico, similar to other island archipelago faunas, exhibits high levels of endemism and low, skewed taxonomic diversity", has the same meaning as low richness-high diversity. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I apologize - obviously too subtle for me ;) Yomanganitalk 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. In the bird section: "At least six endemic species" has one missing (a brief search make me think it might be this)
    • The species you pointed out was already in the list. I have tracked down and added the missing one. Joelito (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. There a few "arguably the most famous/best/most successful" statements which aren't necessary
    • You are free to remove them if you consider it necessary. I would prefer not. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. The lead mentions the number of endangered species but there is little specific reference to this later on (other than a repetition of the figures in the conservation section). For example, having read the intro, I wanted to know which two mammal species were endangered.
    • I will add this info. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. On a related point, the conservation of the Puerto Rican Parrot seems to have too much weight - it is mentioned in the bird, invertebrate and conservation sections. When other endangered species don't even get a name check that doesn't seem fair.
    • It doesn't seem fair but it is the most important conservation program in PR. Basically conservation in Puerto Rico started because of the PR parrot and funds for other programs stemmed rfom the success of this program. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Maybe add a sentence mentioning that? - I saw there was already a mention of it raising ecological awareness but nothing directly connecting it to other programs. Yomanganitalk 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. It took me a while to comprehend this sentence: "...since many of the invertebrate cave fauna are either guano scavengers, detrivores or predators of the former two." That my be a fault with my brain, but it wouldn't hurt to rephrase it. Yomanganitalk 11:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • To me it sounds fine. If you find a way to rephrase it feel free to do it. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It is my brain broken then.Yomanganitalk 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
        • If it doesn't sound good to you it is not that your brain is broken. Remember that I wrote the sentence so it may make perfect sense to me since I know what it's supposed to say but I might not be conveying that meaning clearly. Joelito (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object until Guettarda's and Yomangani's comments are addressed. Great article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually I think that other than the invert thing (which can be added later) my comments have been addressed. Guettarda 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I consider my objections dealt with, as the comments were more to draw them to Joelito's attention than demand changes (I don't think any of those minor points detract from the overall quality of the article), and I've revised my opinion accordingly. Yomanganitalk 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Fauna_of_Puerto_Rico_d5ff.html"