Rodrigues starling is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 3, 2020.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 27, 2014 Good article nominee Listed February 14, 2015 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Birds FA‑class Low‑importance

Rodrigues starling 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, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Birds To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more) Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more) Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more) Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more) NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more) Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more) Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more) Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more) Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more) Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles. More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Extinction FA‑class Low‑importance

This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Palaeontology FA‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

See Sturnia. For a reconstruction, it is presently most warranted to merge the body form of Fregilupus, Sturnia sinensis, Sturnia malabarica and perhaps Leucopsar (too highly arboreal?). The skull/beak must be taken as template (do not forget horny sheath) and the limb proportions too. Then adapt the generalized "Sturnia" (of the old definition) color pattern to the description of Tafforet. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made this sketch based on your description and the skull image in the article.[1] How do you think I could improve it? I did not add a crest, since Julian Hume has left one out of his restoration.[2] The colouration was based on this:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the public domain, and pretty much all we know about the bird is from this, so why not quote it on the page in full? I'll add Alfred Newton's translation, I can't see any reason to object to it, but please do, if it's an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would link to Alfred Newton's original work instead to the citation in Cheke & Hume --Melly42 (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book doesn't give a citation beyond that it was by Newton, so I don't know where it was published... Perhaps he never actually published it? FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newton cited Tafforet's original description in his article Additional evidence as to the Original fauna of Rodrigues Published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (1875) p 41: [4] --Melly42 (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it doesn't seem to contain the translation, but there is a mention of a future publication by Milne-Edwards, but Newton of course couldn't cite it proactively, heheh... FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is found in "Alfred Newton 1875 Additional Evidence as to the Original Fauna of Rodriguez". FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this could be a good article, with some modifications? It seems very long for such a badly known bird, might there be synthesis in the text, of sources that do not particularly mention this species? FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be good to rewrite the outdated section --Melly42 (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? It seems to make clear that it is now seen as a starling, and then give an overview of the older classification history. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if the outdated template should stay in the article --Melly42 (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a bit too much information from sources that don't even mention the bird, I'll have to clean this up before a nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat strange that H. H. Slater has been removed as binomial authority (contra IUCN assessment) --Melly42 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He did not write the publication, so it does not seem he would count as the authority by modern standards. He is not credited in the relevant books (both versions of "Extinct Birds"). Günther and Newton credited him for inventing the name, but again, the publication is what counts. The name came from Slater's personal notes, but was therefore a nomen nudum until published by Günther and Newton, and therefore they are the authority. FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Slater provided the name and the notes which were important for Günther's and Newton's description, so I think it is relevant to include Slater among the describers (at least for the genus authority) --Melly42 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the prose at least, but per modern nomenclatural conventions, he doesn't count as the authority for the scientific name. The IUCN seem to be following Günther and Newton's 19th century whim, from before these conventions were even established. But all the modern books I have looked at credit only Günther and Newton as authority. There is a big difference between making up a name and publishing it, at least when it comes to the rules. For a very recent example (yesterday!) see Nasutoceratops. It was first named in a 2010 thesis where Lund was sole author, but it was not properly published until 2013, so that's what counts, and Sampson is now first author. FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you say to the fact, that Günther & Newton state Slater as authority for Necropsar rodericanus in their paper Extinct Birds of Rodriguez (1879)? Source

I addressed that when I mentioned "Günther and Newton's 19th century whim". Authors cannot cite unpublished work as a taxonomic authority. But back inthose days, the standards were much less clear. But new standards work retroactively, however, which makes those old discrepancies invalid. FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pvmoutside seems unwilling to discuss this. Yes, some bird websites may use the original, erroneous attribution, but the opinion of modern sources (Hume, Walters, and Fuller) should carry more weight than those. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This recent paper[5] confirms that Slater's notes were never published, so it is against accepted practices to credit him rather than the authors of the paper. There is more detail about the situation in Hume 2014, where he credits "Günther & Newton, (ex Slater MS)" for the name. So not sure what Birdlife is on about. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shall review your article. Of course, I know you are an excellent writer here, and this one too is very interesting. I would suggest the following improvements (which are not shortcomings) to enhance the quality so that it becomes a perfect GA:

• Mascarene island of Rodrigues I see this is located in the Republic of Mauritius. Could you please add the country's name just after Rodrigues for easy identification of the area?

Maybe a bit iffy here, the bird went extinct before any country had claimed the island, and the bones were found when the island was ruled by Britain, so it seems a bit retroactive to include it as part of Mautirius, which has little to do with this bird? It only became so relatively recently, 1968. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know that. It's OK as it is, then. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The bird was first reported by a sailor who was marooned on the island in 725–1726 In the next section you give the name of the sailor, but not that he is a sailor, and in the lead you say he is a sailor but do not add his name. I would suggest you wrote "French sailor Julien Tafforet" in both places.

Fixed.

• After reading "Extinction", I think you could add a bit to the lead like this : "Introduced rats, that caused a fall in the availability of food for the starling, were probably responsible for its extinction some time in the 18th century, first on mainland Rodrigues, and finally on Île Gombrani, its last refuge."

I think it was due to predation on eggs rather than lack of food, I'll add this. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you really think marooned needs a link? It is rather a common English word.

.Removed.

• on Rodrigues 9-month ---> on Rodrigues for nine months.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Starling" linked twice (see lead)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• These consisted of the cranium, mandible, sternum, coracoid, humerus, metacarpus, ulna, femur, tibia, and metatarus of several individuals this line appears to contain several terms difficult to be understood by the layman. Could we have some links here? Scientific description in the next line may also be linked.

Fixed first times, will add more. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• thereby creating a junior synonym what does junior synonym mean?

Is a link enough? FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Link passerine and generic separation (perhaps to genetic divergence).

Linked to genus, as that is what generic refers to. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Masauji Hachisuka is a redlink, so you should give his identity yourself. Same for Graham S. Cowles and Strahm.

I introduced the two first ones, and removed Strahm, he is inconsequential. But shouldn't the rest of the names mentioned have similar instructions as well? FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Even a link would have done, but adding the identity is better. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• and most authors find Tafforet's bird to be identical to the one described from subfossil remains I hope "most authors" does not sound vague.

"Modern authors" perhaps? FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Description is very fine, but the last paragraph needs conversion templates.

Yep, will try, I'm very slow at those... FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• British and American English is used at different places. Though not a strict requirement for GAN, the issue of uniformity in the usage of English might be raised in FAC (for example at places you write colouration (BE) and in other places center(AE)).

Dang, must be leftovers from the old version of the article. Where for example, so I know what to look for? I tried to make it BE. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK Mr. Blitzkrieg, you've already fixed it! :D Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Looking forward to your comments. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I'll fix these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! You are awesomely fast! Let me reply in a couple of minutes, please wait. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four issues to go! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to log out presently, I hope you will have all the issues resolved the next time I come. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you have resolved all these issues at a speed no less than a blitzkrieg, I reward your article with GA status. Congrats! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And blitzkrieg pass, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rodrigues starling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209164455/http://www.biodiversityheritagelibrary.org/item/99626 to http://www.biodiversityheritagelibrary.org/item/99626

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, is the description on this image wrong? I do not understand the difference between holotype and syntype. But it would be nice if we had consistency between the file description and the caption on the Main Page: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 3, 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]