Talk:Kererū

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Kererū has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 17, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Birds
Birds Portal
Kererū is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Flag Kererū is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Request for size info

There's nothing in the article about the bird's size (average, maximum, etc.). Can anyone fill that in? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FA

With some inline reffing there's a good basis for an FA here. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chatham species

Split out Chatham Island population. Should have been done a long time ago. Dysmorodrepanis 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a kiwi - that's pretty universally accepted then these days? I'll look into it. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I was talking about this page last night with a friend doing her PhD on Kereru, apparently it was written by another Kereru researcher. And yes, the Chatham Island Pigeon is a separate species now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
OK then, a wiki-mitosis will be occurring soon I guess....:)cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size relative to other sp.

The New Zealand pigeons are the second largest members of the family Columbidae. Since we split out the Chatham Island Pigeon, which is bigger, I guess its now the third biggest? Also, which is the largest? I seem to recal its the Goliath Imperial Pigeon of New Caledonia (or Notu) but I'm not sure. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

+ "living" of course ;-) if using plural "pigeons" it applies to Hemiphaga as a whole, I'd argue. Or at least it might be argued, especially if a line or two about relationships would be thrown in. Nothing of much substance from me, except that they are (as might be expected) a fairly [[basal]] lineage - even among the treronines which are basal themselves. The dodo lineage, the Viti Levu Giant Pigeon, the Henderson archaic species maybe, the tooth-billed and crowned and pheasant pigeons are apparently all members of a rapid evolutionary boom that produced much of the spectrum of Columbidae diversity. No ref though as of now, though I think there is one. Might be worth checking some phylo stuff I dumped at Pigeon; as they're not incertae sedis they should have been sampled. Dysmorodrepanis 21:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if limiting it to extant species, there are several members of Columbidae that are larger (see e.g. the three Crowned pigeons, Parea, Marquesan Imperial-pigeon & New Caledonian Imperial-pigeon). I have removed it. Rabo3 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

1. Well-written (a) Clarity and grammar - Very good! No typo problems. (b)Style - looks good

2. Verifiability Great! Loads of references.

3.Addresses major aspects Looks good.

4. NPOV Looks good (not much controversial stuff here anyway)

5. Stable Good! No edit wars here.

6. Images Good illustration, good licensing!

Final judgment: PASS

Vultur 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I had intended to complete a review of the article, but got tied up with other things. Here are some of the points I had come up with already. I'm not contesting GA status, just offering some suggestions on how the article might be improved.
  • Comprehensiveness: While restrictions on hunting are mentioned in one sentence, there is no coverage of the controversy over Maori traditional rights, which seems like a significant omission. See for example [1], already referenced in that sentence.
  • The recent changes to reflect the Parea becoming a species seem incomplete. For instance, there is still quite a lot in the Description section about the Parea. This might be better phrased in a comparative way, or just deleted. The article still says Hemiphaga is a monotypic genus.
  • In the Breeding section, we say "A complete list of fruits taken by kererū can be found below." I can't see it though.
I also had several concerns about details of the prose, but it's probably easiest for me to address those directly. -- Avenue 02:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Great - thanks for the input. As far as additions, go for thy life as I don't own the article. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I missed the Maori stuff because I don't know too much about NZ politics. Is the Parea definitely a species? If some sources still lump them, it might be OK to list it both ways and explain the controversy.

[edit] No section on place in Maori culture

The Kereru was one of the 2 New Zealand forest birds most important to the maori and they were incredibly important birds both within daily life and as a part of the myths and legends of maori oral tradition. Holy shit I mean I have a copy of Elsdon Best's "Forest Lore of the Maori" here and there are 29 pages on kereru. Kereru were also shot widely for food by european settlers in the past and indeed many are poached illegally now - Avenue ( see above) is right, this is a major omission. Expect some major additions soon. Kotare 07:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  • multiple {{fact}} tags need to be addressed
  • Images make the section formatting look weird. Can this be fixed? (Not absolutely necessary, but doesn't seem to be too hard to fix)
  • Under "Breeding," there's a sentence that says "a complete list of fruit taken by the Kereru can be found below." Did I completely miss the above-mentioned list, or is it not there?


I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Corvus coronoides talk 02:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address your points, although I'm not sure exactly what you mean about the images. -- Avenue (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. I've passed the article. About the images, well, they look great now! Corvus coronoides talk 01:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] name

Just a few comments;

  • When speaking specifically about the species, please remember capitals (i.e. New Zealand Pigeon when specifically speaking about Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae, New Zealand pigeon when speaking about any pigeon from New Zealand). If not familiar with these rules, more can be found on WikiProject Birds' front page.
  • Within the article I've changed it to use New Zealand Pigeon as opposed to Kererū. To avoid confusion, it is recommendable to use the same throughout the article (instead of switching back and forth). I used New Zealand Pigeon because it was the name used most times within the article, but don't care what name is used (although see below), as long as it is done consistently.
  • Is the Maori name used widely in New Zealand? I've never heard the Maori name actually being used for this species. However, I have only visited New Zealand once, so my 'sampling rate' is clearly insufficient. If the Maori name for this species remains widely used among NZ birders, ornithologists and alike, it's fine, but if not, the article should be placed under the name New Zealand Pigeon - exactly like other species with native names that aren't used as "main names" on English wiki.

Rabo3 (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it get used a lot, but either would be okay. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
My experience here in NZ is that 'Wood Pigeon', 'Native Wood Pigeon' and 'Kererū' are all used in common speach; 'New Zealand Pigeon' is rarely used informally. Formal usage e.g., Dept. of Conservation literature, will either refer to "New Zealand Pigeon/Kererū" throughout, or else will use "Kererū" but also provide the European name at the start of an item.

[edit] Capitalisation of kererū

Kererū is inconsistently capitalised. I once asked (here at WikiProject Birds) whether alternative common names should be capitalised. Sabine's Sunbird thought yes; Dysmorodrepanis suggested no, only capitalise formal names. Did this ever get settled anywhere? Nurg (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)