Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fauna of Puerto Rico

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Fauna of Puerto Rico

edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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?
  2. same with the full list of bats? Kind of out of place, just make a small subarticle, list of mammels of ....
  3. split Amphibians and reptiles.

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

  • 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).
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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?
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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
    • Inverts: what about the freshwater shrimp and aquatic insects?

Guettarda 04:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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"?
  2. "The native fauna of Puerto Rico consist of" - elsewhere in the article you treat "fauna" as singular.
  3. "Of the 349 bird species, about 120 birds breed in the archipelago" - "birds" is redundant here
  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
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

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

    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
  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?
  3. In the bird section: "At least six endemic species" has one missing (a brief search make me think it might be this)
  4. There a few "arguably the most famous/best/most successful" statements which aren't necessary
  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.
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fauna_of_Puerto_Rico&oldid=191934714"