Talk:Spotted green pigeon

Cladogram error

It seems Didunculus should be placed basal to the entire clade, not close to Goura. IJReid, this could perhaps be a nice, short GA, by the way... FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, seems there are two different cladograms in the paper... FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor concerns following a GOCE copy-edit on 26 January 2016

1) In the lead and elsewhere, the word "upperparts" is used. Is that accepted spelling in the field of ornithology? I didn't know it had been accepted as one word. The same with "underparts", which I see later in the article.

2) The first sentence in the last paragraph of the section Spotted green pigeon#Evolution is:

• The flight abilities of the Kanaka pigeon do not seem to have been reduced, and its distribution indicates dispersal through island hopping.

For the non-expert reader, I think a bit of a connection needs to be made between the Kanaka pigeon and the Green spotted pigeon here. The Kanaka pigeon was mentioned in the previous paragraph, but even there the connection was tenuous. Here, you are starting a new paragraph but not connecting this thought to the Green spotted pigeon. Also for the non-expert, what does "The flight abilities...do not seem to have been reduced" mean? Also, it's not completely clear what "its" refers to.

3) In the section Spotted green pigeon#Behaviour and ecology, first paragraph, you have a sentence that begins:

• The dark eyes and of the Nicobar pigeon are typical of species that forage on forest floors...

You can see that something is not right with the beginning of this sentence. I thought about simply deleting "and", so it would read, "The dark eyes of the Nicobar pigeon", but then I thought it would make sense if, in addition to the eyes, the feathers were also dark to help camouflage the bird on the forest floor. Can you check the source and see if it is also the feathers. If so, we can add "feathers" after "and". It would then read:

• The dark eyes and feathers of the Nicobar pigeon...

4) In the section Spotted green pigeon#Description there is a shaded box. Checkingfax has told me that such boxes are deprecated, meaning their use is not encouraged and they are not considered to be the best style. Before changing it, I wanted to ask Checkingfax what s/he thought about its use here. I never got a chance to ask why shaded boxes are deprecated; I think if they're not overused, they are a nice alternative to regular block quotes, but of course I will defer to Checkingfax's judgment and Wikipedia style recommendations.

Well, that's all. Overall, this is a well written article. Corinne (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for copy edit and comments, I'll respond here soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FunkMonk I just changed several instances of "nbsp;" to a no-break space template provided to me by Checkingfax. Checkingfax, I saw an edit summary recently accompanying a similar change in another article in which you said you changed the space to the template so that something would not "chew them up and spit them out", or something like that. Can you explain why it is not good to use the "nbsp;"? I've been using it for quite a while in many articles; no one said it wasn't good to use it. I've started using the template, but what about all the ones I've typed up to now? How could I ever find all of them to change them?

Funk Monk, I'm puzzled as to why you didn't use the conversion template for the measurements. You could specify the number of decimal points you want it to go to, from zero up. Corinne (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I've shied away from using them because I'm so bad with numbers that I fear I'll put in the numbers incorrectly, or do some other weird things with the parameters. Is there some guide and list of different templates? FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So here go the comments:

1: Yep, "underparts" and "upperparts" are used this way in both of the most recent sources used. Would you expect "under-parts" and such?

Well, I would prefer two separate words: upper parts and under parts, but I guess ornithologists would like to see them together. Corinne (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

2: Though the articles appear to state these facts to make inferences about the spotted green pigeon, it is not stated explicitly. So though I think the info is important for this reason, I'm not sure whether stating it differently and making a direct connection to the spotted green pigeon would be "original synthesis" or not...

3: I noticed this mistake while you were copy editing, so didn't want to cause a potential edit-conflict, but now fixed.

4: I've used this style in quite few a FACs now. No one seems to have taken any issues with the boxes during FAC, and I think they break up the text nicely. They have only been drive-by removed once in a while by completely uninvolved editors. That indicates the only people who care about this are those who have little to do other than enforce arbitrary MOS guidelines as strict rules... FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know... Sometimes there may be good reasons we don't know about; in this case, I don't know; that's why I asked Checkingfax. I see you made an effort to clarify the sentence about the Kanaka pigeon in this edit. To me, the phrase "this bird" is not clear. Which bird – the Kanaka pigeon or the Spotted green pigeon? Corinne (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, not taking a swipe at Checkingfax! It's just that I've seen other such guidelines be removed from the MOS once people realised they served little purpose, such as when images were not "allowed" to be left aligned after a title.[1] Will take another look at the Kanaka pigeon sentence soon, I see I also forgot to change the reduction thing... FunkMonk (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Changed the sentence to "The flight abilities of the Kanaka pigeon do not seem to have been weakened, and the distribution of that bird indicates dispersal through island hopping." Is it clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

First, I can see no reason to mention the flight abilities of the Kanaka pigeon unless it is related somehow to the Spotted green pigeon. The question is, what exactly is that connection? The birds are related; probably developed from the same ancestor, right? How about this:

The fight abilities of the Spotted green pigeon do not show a weakening in comparison to those of the Kanaka pigeon.

I also am not quite clear on why these two things have to be joined into one sentence, because they are unrelated, but if you really want them to be in one sentence O.K. If you prefer your wording for the first part of the sentence, then I would write:

The flight abilities of the Kanaka pigeon do not seem to have weakened in the Spotted green pigeon.

In your last version, "that bird" could mean either bird. You need to say "the Kanaka pigeon" or "the Spotted green pigeon" or, "the latter" (if you mean the last pigeon mentioned) or "the former" (if you mean the first pigeon mentioned). Corinne (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Corinne and FunkMonk:. If you put template:quote box in the Search box on any page it will take you to the template documentation page that describes its use and parameters. In a nutshell, quote box is for pull quotes ({{cquote}})‍—‌click on cquote link to read about pull quote template use in articles.

Can't yet again find the MoS or guideline on using shading in quote boxes.

I saw a JavaScript lately being used a lot by editors that removes the   HTML escape codes so I have been replacing them with templates as I see them so the script will leave them be. Also, if the use is  –    (non-breaking space/en dash/regular space)) I just nuke the whole thing and replace it with the template {{snds}} which prevents a future editor from accidentally removing the trailing regular space. It is also easier to tell on sight that it is a space/en dash/space.

wikEd is good at finding and replacing things, but I go cautiously because templates can break image names, wikilinks, and references‍—‌so I don't do any autopilot replacements‍—‌I do them one by one, and it does not take long. Also, changing a hyphen to an en dash or vice versa within an image name can totally disable the file path name to the image. Have you ever used the wikEd find/replace feature? It even supports regex (regular expression) find/replace, something I am just getting up to speed on. Regex find/replace is very powerful.

What are the remaining issues with this article? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I've added a lot of &  to articles over the last year and a half since I learned about it. That's a lot to change. If you ever have nothing to do, you can look at articles I've copy-edited over the last year and a half and replace the   with the template. I've used WikEd for quite a while but never saw the "Find and replace" feature. Where is it? Regarding this article, we're still working on a sentence. See my point #2 near the beginning of this section, then User:FunkMonk's reply, also numbered #2, and further discussion after that. We could use some help. Corinne (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Corinne, I tried something new with the sentence, how about this?[2] Now it is at least part of something more directly relevant, and shouldn't be too "synthetic"... As for the MOS about quote boxes, I'd like to see where this can be discussed... FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk Well, that's much clearer, and makes sense. Stylistically, it's just all right; it could be improved. Here it is now:

• The distribution of the Nicobar pigeon and the Kanaka pigeon (which does not seem to have had weak flight abilities) suggests dispersal through island hopping, and that the spotted green pigeon originated from a location in Oceania or Southeast Asia.

Do you see the "and that..."? It follows, of course, "suggests". The two phrases that follow "suggests" ought to be parallel, that is, follow the same grammatical pattern. Here, you've got:

suggests

• dispersal through island hopping (a noun phrase), and

• that the spotted green pigeon originated from a location in Oceania or Southeast Asia (a noun clause)

If you want to make the sentence flow better, you've got to make the two parts after "suggests" parallel. That would mean either making the second one a noun phrase or making the first one a noun clause beginning with "that". I'll show you what I mean. Here are some possibilities:

two noun phrases:

• dispersal through island hopping and

• an origin in Oceania or Southeast Asia

two noun clauses, with both verbs in active voice:

• that the spotted green pigeon dispersed through island hopping and

• that the spotted green pigeon originated from a location in Oceania or Southeast Asia

– Corinne (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, what if I want the first part to refer to the group as a whole (add "suggests that the group/genus dispersed through..."?), and only the last to be specifically about the spotted pigeon? FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw the change that you made to the sentence. I think the first part of the sentence is an improvement, but you still have that noun clause just hanging there at the end, not connected well with the rest of the sentence. Let me ask you: why do you want the information about the origin (in Oceania or SE Asia) to apply only to the spotted green pigeon? Is that not true also of the Kanaka pigeon? If so, you could just add, "like the Kanaka pigeon": "that the spotted green pigeon, like the Kanaka pigeon,, originated from a location in Oceania or Southeast Asia". I just don't understand joining the two birds when referring to dispersal throughout the islands and not joining them when referring to their origin. Did they really originate in two very different places? Also, in this sentence, aren't you (that is, ornithologists) inferring some things (method of dispersal and origin) about an extinct bird from an extant bird (the Kanaka pigeon)? Corinne (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The Kanaka pigeon is extinct too, but its locality is known, so it is inferring things about an extinct bird known from a skin but with no locality data (spotted pigeon), from an extinct bird only known from fossils but with known distribution (Kanaka pigeon)... It is also important because it was formerly claimed that the spotted pigeon had short wings and therefore weak flight abilities. Here is the text from Heupink et al. 2014[3], which is CC licensed, so should be no problem to post it here: "The other species in the genus Caloenas, the extinct Kanaka Pigeon (C. canacorum) known from sub-fossil remains from New Caledonia and Tonga, shows no indications of a reduction in the ability to fly and its localities indicate an island hopping history [14,15]. This species is considered to be about 25% larger than the 40 cm Nicobar Pigeon and is thus unlikely to be conspecific with the 32 cm Spotted Green Pigeon. The Nicobar and Kanaka Pigeon may suggest a possible Oceanian or Southeast Asian origin for the Spotted Green Pigeon, the relation to the Raphinae however also opens up the possibility that the taxon originated from a location in the Indian Ocean." Van Grouw 2014 also makes a point of the Kanaka pigeon probably not having weak flight abilities, and since both papers discuss the flight ability of the spotted pigeon, it seems clear that they mention the Kanaka pigeon because they want to infer something about the spotted one. So the reason why I'm kind of tip-toeing around it in the text here is that if I make the connection more clear than the paper itself, it is in a way "interpreting" the source. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Pretty complicated. Thanks for explaining. I'm glad you're aware of the subtleties of using sources. I still think the structure of the sentences needs improvement. I suggest changing the last part (a noun clause) to a noun phrase:

• The distribution of the Nicobar pigeon and the Kanaka pigeon (which does not seem appear to have had weak flight abilities) suggests dispersal through island hopping and an origin for the spotted green pigeon in Oceania or Southeast Asia.

How's that? Corinne (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll take it, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spotted green pigeon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this interesting article. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

My comments:

Lead

• It was first mentioned in 1723 by John Latham... No harm in adding that he described it as well. And link "described" as well.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Link plumage. Also in the main text.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Affinities" may be confusing, how about taxonomic history or relationships or phylogeny?

Took "taxonomic relationships". FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Extinct valid species or valid extinct species?

Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• Link described. I think "provenance" should again be linked in the main body.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• ... in his work A General Synopsis of Birds from 1783 I have not seen "from" anywhere, I have rather seen "in" there. I don't know if I am wrong, but I think the best way would be ...his 1783 work...

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Some writers speculated that the specimens could ... but there is no evidence to support this Much vagueness here. Try to give at least one valid example of such a writer or cite one of such works in which such speculation is clear. As you have done in the second paragraph.

The source itself is vague on this: "Later authors, however, based on the relationship between Davies, Banks and Cook, made the assumption that the birds came from the South Pacific, although there is no evidence in the literature that a bird even faintly resembling a Spotted Green Pigeon was received by Banks after Cook’s third voyage (Medway 1979, Stresemann 1949, 1950, 1953)." I don't know what the citations at the end refer to, who made the claim, or who claimed there was no evidence... As this is the most comprehensive source about the bird, it doesn't seem to be important then. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally the authors stated at the end of a sentence like "Some authors hold that..." are the ones the text is referring to. BTW for your convenience I found the online Medway 1979 work here and Stresemann's 1950 work here. I think even citing these in the article should be enough. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the articles, they confirm my fear... They are articles about what birds Cook did collect, none mention the spotted pigeon, so they only support this part: "there is no evidence in the literature that a bird even faintly resembling a Spotted Green Pigeon was received by Banks after Cook’s third voyage". This means those that made the connection between Cook and the bird are not cited nor named... So not much I can add. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think a solution would be to use the original source that told you about "those writers" in the first half of the sentence, and the second half could be sourced using these two articles. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean keeping the sentence as it is? I don't think I can let those sources stand alone, since they don't mention the subject of this article they have to be used in conjunction with the article that makes them, otherwise it might seem like original synthesis... But I can definitely add them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I say, if the speculation thing has no evidence or much significance, then why add such a troublesome line? Remove it and be done with it if unless it would be too big a loss which I don't think it will be. Even if we agree on a compromise here, I feel it will surely stir up trouble at FAC! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

How about "Though Banks received many specimens from British explorer James Cook, and Davis received specimens from contacts in New South Wales, implying a location in the South Pacific Ocean, there are no records of spotted green pigeons having been sent from these sources." FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a Brainwave! Go for it. I wonder if you still can add the new sources... Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Added new sentence, and the Cook source that seems most relevant. FunkMonk (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Davies' specimen was originally mounted, and was perhaps taxidermied by himself. I could not understand what you meant by "mounted". Also, what exactly are you "perhaps" about? Are you unsure if it was taxidermied or if it was he or someone else who did it? I think this needs a rejig.

Spread it out, clearer? A mount is just a posed specimen rather than a study skin (not posed). I've added "posed". FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Better now. Thanks for telling me. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• ... used it in his 1790 Index ornithologicus I think "1790 work" is clearer.

.Done. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Tommaso Salvadori listed the bird in an appendix about "doubtful species of Pigeons... Why should "P" of Pigeon be capitalized?

Since it's kind of a quote, but well, de-capitalised anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Why should Gmelin be considered the authority for the present name if he was associated only with Columba maculata?

Because the original species name is the "important" name that will remain constant in whatever genus the animal is classified in... This is the standard in taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• though some ornithologists accepted it as a valid (yet enigmatic) species Vague?

Removed the parenthesis, not sure if it addresses your concern? FunkMonk (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant the "some". I always recommend that when you say "some" also give at least one example for it. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Rewrote it, it seems it might even have been an overstatement, it seems like the bird was barely mentioned at all, with a single publication (not known if the only one) considering it valid. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• In 2001 Errol Fuller suggested that the bird had been historically overlooked because Rothschild (who had an obsessive interest in rare birds) dismissed it as an aberration, perhaps due to not owning the specimen himself, and therefore downplaying its significance. This description of Rothschild could be rejigged, it looks inappropriate as it is.

I agree it was a bit too biased, better now? FunkMonk (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Much more encyclopedic. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• The "common name" link. We have had enough discussions on it elsewhere, I wouldn't touch it anymore!

Hehe, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• He also hypothesised the bird might have inhabited a Pacific island In the lead you specified it as "South" Pacific Ocean.

The mention in the lead is due to the sentence "Some writers speculated that the specimens could have been brought from the South Pacific Ocean". FunkMonk (talk) 8:31 am, Today (UTC+1)

I see. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Link Polynesia. Should it be "eastern Polynesia"?

Did both. FunkMonk (talk) 8:31 am, Today (UTC+1)

• Who is Michael Walters?

Specified him and Hume collectively. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Who is Heupink? If not known you may simply write "2014 study of ancient DNA".

Added occupation. I don't think naming people is necessarily a problem as long as their occupation is noted. Especially not when it comes to seminal studies like this. Hasn't been a problem before, in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Link phylogenetic, taxon

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• ...yet the genetic distance between the two was more than what is seen within other pigeon species, but similar to that between different species in the same genus I could not understand the part after the comma. Are you referring in general to a genus and its species or are you talking of Caloenas and its species?

Clarified, better? As for the addition to your comment, it is both about the distance generally seen, and the distance in Caloenas. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• ...suggests dispersal through island hopping and an origin for the spotted green pigeon in Oceania or Southeast Asia Should it not be "southeastern" Asia? I guess that is more proper unless you refer to some country like South Africa or North Korea. Same for South Asia in the last line of the section.

De-capitalised. FunkMonk (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• ...indicates that the spotted green pigeon could also have originated somewhere in the Indian Ocean You don't mention the possibility of the bird's former occurrence anywhere near Indian Ocean in the lead.

Added, though it doesn't seem to be a much repeated view. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• In any case, it seems most likely that the bird inhabited an island location, like its relatives You may be asked to specify which relatives you refer to.

Everything shown in the cladogram... Not sure how that could be clearer without repetition. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Description

• I think citation 4 should be placed at the end of the line Latham's slightly extended ... reads as follows: rather than inside the quote.

From what I've seen, the opposite is actually used in most FAs with quotes. In any case, hasn't been a problem for me in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, will remember that. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Who is Hein van Grouw? And Brian Small?

Specified the former, removed the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• The weight was never recorded This seems to imply that the last specimen is no more alive. I think it should read The weight has not been recorded.

Changed. In any case, stuffed specimens are not useful for this purpose... FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Link mantle, scapular

Explained mantle, as there's no article, and linked latter. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Behaviour and ecology

• The name of the bird mentioned by Tahitians in 1928 was said to be similar to that bird's call; "titi Vague?

I tried different versions, but couldn't find one that didn't repeat the word... Tried something else, better? FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, this can not be rejigged very well. Let it be as it is. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Extinction

• ... may already have been close to extinction by the time Europeans arrived in its native area Wait, you have not stated the range explicitly, then which area do you refer to? It could be the Pacific or the Indian Ocean, and we do not even know where exactly. Forget about the "when".

That's why I don't specify. Wherever it lived, it was native to somewhere, but we don't know where it is... But the information about European arrival would be the same. FunkMonk (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see why this can not be specified. But if you are so sure of the European arrival, then you could add this to the lead and Taxonomy sections so that when one first comes across it they will know that this bird was native to some area in the Pacific where the European arrival is confirmed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you want added? We know Europeans encountered the birds in their native area because specimens were brought to Europe, not because there are accounts of their discovery in the wild. So it kind of goes without saying (and no source states it explicitly). FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, we have a justification now. Not a great thing to add as you said. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• General : It would be better if you rearranged stuff and made it look like it has enough inline citations instead of "spreading over" citations for each paragraph by mentioning them at the end of each paragraph. Also, you must modify the lead as you modify the article.

Hmm, this is an optionable style issue, there's no rule as to which is better. Never had problems with this style. If everything in a paragraph is from the same source, only once citation is needed by the end. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, just a suggestion. Nothing mandatory here. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Overall, a really laudable effort. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

One to go. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Good to go. Don't waste a second before hurling this into FAC, will you, FunkMonk ;)? BTW, This seems to be the 100th bird GA. See Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice! Already have two FACs up, so have to wait until one of them passes... I'm surprised how little response the passenger pigeon has gotten, perhaps the article is intimidating... FunkMonk (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Why, is it a rule to wait? Didn't know. Anyway I'm gonna shove Dromedary in. I guess the pigeon article is dangerously flawless! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You can only have one FAC up as sole nominator, but one more if it is a co-nomination... "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them." But GANs are limitless. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• A little bonus info I forgot to mention, Sainsf, while researching for this article, I found the alternate version of the 1823 plate seen under description... I was puzzled because it differed so much from the version mentioned in the sources, so I asked Hein van Grouw (who wrote the latest detailed paper about the bird) about it in an email, and he said he had never seen it before... The weird thing is, it looks more like the existing skin than the other version of the drawing... So as it seems to have been overlooked, it is kind of "new" to science! FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

o_O So Wikipedia is leading to discoveries?! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 04:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

These two depictions of extinct birds[4][5] I identified were also previously unknown in the literature according to Julian P. Hume! So researching for Wikipedia can have benefits outside of improving articles... FunkMonk (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A biiiig WOW! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)