Talk:Puerto Rican Amazon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Puerto Rican Amazon 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 26, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

Contents

[edit] 30mm or 30 cm?

On general description it says "Females and males measure 30 mm on average." I don´t much about this bird, butI belive that 30mm (3cm) is to litle. Can somebody confirm this? Nnfolz 20:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It was a mistake that has been fixed Joelito 20:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA

This is probably not too far off GA, which would be a good place to park before a tilt at FAC...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I bought a 300-page book about the Amazon on February but mid-terms are currently holding me back from doing any significant contributions, I should be able to add a few thousand bytes to this article by this month's end. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Kewl...those are the best kind of resource. It should really romp home at FAC come early march then. I am sure your edits will pop up on my watchlist and it should be an easy run in (be nice to blue some of those redlinks in the meantime...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Elevating to FA has been a goal of mine for some time now. I, however, do not have time nor the resource (the 1987 Snyder book) to complete the task. Joelito (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

CHQ, when you said the Amazon above, you did mean this birdy and not the river didn't you? WP:Birds is quite lively at the moment (you never can tell when wikiprojects go into hibernation like WP:dinosaurs has done this year) so now would be a great time to disgorge some facts into this article for a crack at GA and FA if you have the time yet, as there are a few of us round to help. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reference 13, currently a collection of several ref points. - page numbers needed. Snowman (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm on it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The wiki page on the Red-tailed Hawk lists 14 subspecies. Does the article refer to any particular subspecies? The hawk in the image on this page looks darker than those shown on the Red-tailed Hawk page. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The image is of B. j. jamaicensis, known locally as Guaraguao, this subspecies is found in the Caribbean, including Jamaica and Puerto Rico. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick notes

One thing I noticed from the briefest of glances at the article, are the words "in size" and "in color" necessary in the lead? Seems like they don't add much info but do add bulk to the wording. delldot on a public computer talk 09:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC) (ok, done) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple more minor things:

  • "The wing primaries and primary coverts are dark blue." What are wing primaries and primary coverts? - I tweaked the sentence a bit and linked the relevant terms - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "The underside of the feathers have a slightly different hue with the wings' underside feathers, which can be seen during flight, being brightly blue with a yellow-green tail." This sentence is a little awkward and confusing. - Rewritten, it certainly was kind of awkward. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This article looks very beautifully done, I hope I get more of a chance to read it later! delldot on a public computer talk 09:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would recommend citing sources for these sentences:

  • "Other objectives included the establishment of two separate viable wild populations (500 or more individuals for 5 years)..."
  • "A captive population was established in the Luquillo Aviary in 1973... Another was established in 1993..."

Really, I'll cut it out now :P delldot on a public computer talk 09:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm back for two more:

  • "the Puerto Rican Amazon declined drastically" -> numbers declined? the population declined? Fixed - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "A. v. gracilipes inhabited Culebra Island and is unclear whether it was distinct." Not sure whether this makes no sense just because of the awkward wording, or if more information is really needed. I believe Casliber fixed this one - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

delldot on a public computer talk 09:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN notes

First read: Could do with a good copyedit, other than Delidot's points there is some sloppiness "weren't" "didn't", and places where the phrasing was hard to follow or unnecessarily wordy. Drifts to and from plural a bit, eg last two sentences of "diet"

  1. intro is a bit short, needs a bit perhaps on evolutionary development and/or behaviour to make at least a third para - Expanded, how does it look now? - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Taxonomy; sources for Bodddaert and iguaca would be good if possible. gracilipes bit needs rewording so it makes sense (better?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Why is green plumage camouflage inside the nest(!) but contrasting outside? - The sentence is referring to the bird's behaviour not its plumage, inside the nest the Amazons are secretive, outside of it they tend to be quite vocal. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. When in search of food, the parrot groups in pairs with couples and young birds product of the same brood displaying a tendency to stay together I know what you mean, but... - Tweaked a bit, I think the meaning should be clear. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not far off, but I'll have a more leisurely read when I get more time

Thanks for the points, I am a little exhausted at the moment but will attend them early tommorow (Sunday) morning. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination

 GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused): #It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall: #:Pass/Fail:


If you plan to go to FA, the text is a bit choppy, with too many short sentences. Try to avoid "however", it's usually redundant. I fixed those and some other infelicities on a final ce jimfbleak (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and your help, I still have a few tweaks in mind before going to FAC, perhaps we should also list it a peer review. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] People featured in the text

Taylor and Lack are both featured. Could the full name be included for verifiability. Do these people have wikipages to link too? Snowman (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The first one is David Lack, however the second one is quoted as E.C. Taylor, who wrote a book titled Five Months in the West Indies, part 2 in 1864, I don't think he has a page here, perhaps we should just omit his name. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What was E.C. Taylor doing there? Was he researching the wildlife or on holiday? Is the observation quoted in this book? It might be better to cite the original source. If you can find the relevant 1864 book and check it out, this author could be a reference. It might be in google books. Snowman (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure, but my guess is that if he is quoted in a book written by several biologists then he was most likely a scientist of some kind, most likely a biologist or a geologist. As far as the book goes I tried to find a copy online since it was written more than a century ago and it is probably in the public domain, but haven't found anything yet. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the citation for Taylor:

  • Taylor, E.C. 1864. Five months in the West Indies. Part 2, Martinique, Dominica, and Puerto Rico. Ibis 6:157-173.

It isn't in JSTOR, but I'm sure it should be available at a major library. Guettarda (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction - it is online. I just don't have access. Guettarda (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That narrows the search, now we know that he was an ornithologist and that the "C." stands for Cavendish, now if we can find his name... I will leave a note at WP:BIRDS to see if someone knows that last bit. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently had an MA and was a Fellow of the Zoological Society [1]

Here we go [2] (second hit on google for me): Rev. Edward Cavendish Taylor, MA, FZS. Note that there's also a George Cavendish Taylor, active around the same time - FZS, FRGS. Brothers? And George is writing about five weeks in Florida [3]

Now I feel the need to know more. Who were these people? The death of George's son Launcelot makes the NYTimes society page in 1901 (6th story down). Guettarda (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I must switch my search engine, Yahoo! only brought a lot of random links back, thanks for finding that. They were most likely family, intriguing. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Quotes around "Cavendish Taylor", which gave me the FZS (and the links to George). "Cavendish Taylor" + FZS led me to Rev. Edward.  :) Guettarda (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Departamento de Recursos Naturales?

Isn't it "Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales"? Or has the name changed? (End of this section. Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, although Departamento de Recursos Naturales is a lot more common, I have only seen the full name in official documents like this one. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Really? I remember it from signs and things in Guánica Forest, although iirc it was DRN in 1995 and DRNA in 1996. Mostly I remember because it confused me (given my poor Spanish)...I read the name as if it was English (Department of X and Y), and was confused at the use of an adjectival form. It was only a while later that I realised that both adjectives must apply to Recursos. Since that took me a few months to figure out, I felt really dumb about it. That kinda thing sticks :)

Another question:

As of 2008, the total population comprises an estimated 34 and 40 individuals living in the wild and a captive population of 143 parrots

The reference cited is undated, but says "retrieved 2006". So is it "as of 2008", or "as of some date before June 7, 2006? Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

At some point before August 2006, actually. I missed fixing that when correcting the populations numbers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"13 individuals in 1975". Is this the wild population? Is the whole paragraph just about the wild parrots? Snowman (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Puerto_Rican_Amazon#Population_and_distribution says 30-35 wild birds. The lead says 34-40. Different source, but the article should be consistent. Guettarda (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought that all of these were updated while working with all the other peer review issues, I hate working under preassure... - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)