Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mascarene teal/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17:30 12 January 2026 FACBot (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Mascarene teal


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another Mascarene bird driven to extinction by human activities. This reuses some text from the 2021 FA Mauritius shelduck, as the two have many sources in common. Even less has been written about this species, and most of it is summarised here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Anas_theodori_bones.jpg: if the author is unknown, the image description should include details of what research was done to try to identify author... but the description already names authors?
Added details of research, the listed names were just the article's authors, which were rarely the draughtsmen. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:LocationMascarene.svg: what is the source of the data underlying this map?
There isn't really any data other than the location of this island group itself, as it's not explicitly a species range map. What kind of source would you suggest? An atlas? FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a derivative of a base map? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Farm_at_Foul_Bay.jpg: if this was published in 1995, that would mean it was published before 2003, so the tagging is incorrect
The tagging is the result of our last discussion when this image was used in Mauritius shelduck: FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest clarifying the matter on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's because it's a plate in the appendix of the publication, here in the same PDF as the last article in the issue out of convenience. But it really belongs to another article earlier in the publication, clarified with this edit. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from RIHG

Some comments on a first readthrough below:

  • I find the IUCN ref in the infobox suboptimal, as the reference appears to be talking about just Mauritius when giving the 1696 extinction date, but no such elaboration is provided in the IB.
Yeah, that's our standard for taxobox conservation status entries, though, so not sure what else can be done than just mentioning the issue in the prose like now. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel comfortable with that as I think the IB is actively misleading those readers appraising the article "at a glance", although I will defer to another reviewer if they think it is appropriate. - RIHG
Any suggestions for what to do are welcome. As far as I know, that parameter is specifically for IUCN statuses, so I can't really add another/an additional source. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack, I notice you raised the extinction comment in the GA review. Do you have any thoughts on whether anything should be changed, or is this okay for the purposes of FA? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack (fixing ping) Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be more comfortable if this would be changed. I do not think that the extinction date in the taxobox is IUCN-specific; according to the documentation (Template:Speciesbox#Extinct_species), the extinction date is an optional parameter, can be adjusted with text, and there is no connection to the IUCN. So you could either add both dates available, or at least add a footnote. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, assuming I can cite other sources than IUCN in that field, I tried with the less specific "extinct = by 1700 on Mauritius, by 1710 on Réunion" (cites Hume & Walters 2012). How is that? FunkMonk (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One contemporary account described it as gray." Earlier, you referenced descriptions of a small duck, appearing to intentionally imply it ambiguous whether this was the Mascarene teal. Here, you seem confident that it was.
The small duck is universally considered this species, the issue with the two species is just one source that uses two different names for ducks on Réunion (without mentioning size) specifically, so it wouldn't affect accounts mentioning the small duck only. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make it clearer in the first para of the lead that the small duck is universally considered the Mascarene teal? - RIHG
I added "which is thought to be this species". FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British ornithologists Hywel Glyn Young" why is this plural>
Fixed to singular, there was another publication by Young and others from around the same time I think I had originally referred to. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They suggested that though members of the same birds groups initially colonised both Mauritius and Réunion" what is being suggested? That they colonized? That they disappeared?
Both, they colonised, then disappeared due to the volcanic eruptions, and later the ancestors of the present species recolonised. Do you think this could be clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the volcanic eruption of Piton des Neiges between 300,000 and 180,000 years ago" The source is saying the volcano was active during this period, with several "explosive episodes" throughout.
Changed to plural "eruptions". FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thereafter the island would have been recolonised by flighted species" in the source "One may propose the hypothesis that the ancestral forms of these genera arrived on Reunion at a more ancient period and survived the holocaust" appears to contradict.
Your quote refers specifically to Mascarinus and Fregilupus, a parrot and a starling. The part about this duck says "The island was colonized again by forms from Africa or Madagascar, such as the ibis, Alopochen, falcon, and night heron, or by forms from Mauritius, such as Anas theodori and Fulica newtonii, and none of these forms had enough time to become flightless.". FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, makes sense. - RIHG
  • "Lastly, he identified a crow-like bird as a Mauritius bulbul." Why include this sentence?
Well, all the other birds he identified are listed, so would seem like an omission, as it's pretty conspicuous on the image which is shown after the text here. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider moving this to a footnote? The way it reads is a summary of the paper rather than specifically addressing the Mascarane teal. - RIHG
That bird specifically? Because the other birds are mentioned previously. I think for an article this short, relegating such context to footnotes is unnecessary. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course in the inverse, every word of off-topic material in a short article makes up a greater portion of the body. It may be able to be addressed by simple editing rather than putting it in a footnote, it just appears awkwardly tacked on to my eyes at the moment. - RIHG
I've shuffled it around so the bulbul isn't mentioned last, any better? FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. - RIHG
  • I am unsure of how things are typically done on these articles, but it strikes me as exceptionally precise to say the sternum of the duck was 27.7mm wide. Surely natural variation from duck to duck would render this inaccurate? The same goes for the other measurements described.
It refers to specific, few fossils, hence "Based on the known bones", but I've added a roundup parameter that might make some of the conversions seem less hyper specific. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The coracoid of the Mascarene teal is very similar to that of the Sunda teal." Confusingly, this follows a paragraph lead in which leads the reader to understand they will describing differences. The gloss of jargon over this and the next paragraph are useful, but break the flow. I'm not sure what the alternative is if any: omit jargon? Footnote? Labelled image accompanying text? I am honestly most inclined to a table best serving the reader since all the elements are being described with reference to the Sunda teal.
That's how the source phrases it, and generally what scientific descriptions do, mingle similarities with differences in a bone by bone description. In-text explanations in parenthesis are always recommended during technical FACs, to avoid "forcing the reader to chase links". For an article this short, where the subject is known from so little, relegating the crucial aspects to footnotes is missing the point, as the dry bone differences is really what defines the subject. It's basically the meat and potatoes of this kind of article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this makes me sorry that you landed me as a first reviewer, although hopefully my perspective as someone outside the technical domain of this article provides some value. Footnotes are probably the worst option, although to be clear I was proposing a plain text description in the body and then the technical terms in footnotes. I would like to hear whether you think the flow is broken in this sequence from the repeated parentheses in close succession. - RIHG
Nah, getting "lay-reader" reviews is good, since it does give a more objective impression, and we are here to write for a general audience after all. The style used where parentheses occur in close succession is the result of so many terms being very technical in this case, but that's not necessarily unique for this article. Even when articles exist for a technical term, we are usually asked by reviewers to add an in-text gloss. But that is exactly to make the article easier to follow for lay-readers without having to look at multiple other articles, which is why I'm hesitant to "reinvent the wheel" here. For recent FAC examples with such glossing, see Heptamegacanthus and Alicella. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to you on this. - RIHG
  • "indicating no reduction in flight capability" I naturally read this as a comparison with the Sunda teal.
Yeah, the Sunda teal is flighted, so similarity to that indicates the Mascarene species could also fly. Or is something unclear in the text? FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not as awkward on a second reading. - RIHG
  • In the lead you say it probably nested in tree holes, but in the body you say several times it possibly nested in tree holes.
Changed to possibly to be consistent, but the point is just that we don't know. Related ducks do that, but the sources about this duck don't say that explicitly, unfortunately, I guess because it's assumed specialist readers would know. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many other endemic species..." the relevance of the digression into modern Mauritius and Réunion being difficult to conserve is confusing in the structure of the behaviour and ecology section. I believe it would fit better in extinction.
The extinction section is specifically about the extinction of this species, whereas the behaviour and ecology section takes a wider ecological look at its environment and coinhabitants. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come back to this. - RIHG
I remain of the opinion that the better place to discuss the broader extinction context is in extinction rather than ecology. Are there other articles that make the same editorial decision you can link me to? - RIHG
All my other FAs about extinct Mascarene birds were promoted with this format without anyone ever bringing that up. Recent examples are Rodrigues night heron, Réunion swamphen, and Mauritius sheldgoose. No one else has written promoted articles about this fauna so far. FunkMonk (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the local subspecies of the echo parakeet," I think move this to the start of the list to avoid tripping the reader up on the possibility that this is a gloss of the Mascarene parrot.
I just removed it, as the species technically isn't extinct. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you only describe the extinct bird species it lived alongside in the ecology section? Are these all there were in the environment?
It's mainly to show how many species were lost to human activities and how diverse the fauna was. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expressing the first point seems tangential to a section on ecology. If you can find descriptions of other species I would support their inclusion. - RIHG
What do you mean by descriptions? Listing them is itself the point, to establish context, not necessarily to go in depth with each species. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry, I mean listings rather than going in-depth. My point here being that the section on ecology would best serve the reader if it described the other species the Mascarene teal was living around, rather than just describing those that it was living around that have since gone extinct. - RIHG
Would it help if I added something like "Surviving species include x, y, and z"? FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. - RIHG
Added a line. FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cheke elaborated in 2013" I believe this should be Cheke & Hume elaborated in 2008. I also a bit unclear on why you say "predation by introduced animals, particularly cats" when the paper I am reading only references other species in terms of the Mascarene teal "surviving" them. This seems unclear as to the threat these other species posed.
That is Cheke, A. S. (2013), citation 16, which says "Primarily cats, hunting secondary; survived rats & pigs" on page 10. The paper is a direct response to Hume & Walters, which Cheke found needed some corrections. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at page 10, and "Anas theodori, Mauritius: Primarily cats, hunting secondary; survived rats and pigs" & "Anas theodori, Réunion: Cats + over-hunting; survived rats & pigs" are in a column labelled "Cause inferred by Cheke & Hume (2008) or (#) this paper". If it were appropriate to credit Cheke, A. S. (2013), it should be following a # like other entries in the table. - RIHG
The context and point of the Cheke 2013 paper is that it notes omissions about extinctions in the 2012 Hume/Walters book, which Cheke then "corrects" by listing what the 2008 book concluded. Hence it is the 2013 source that synthesises these subjects that should be cited, even if it uses the earlier source to back it up, and in the order of publication. The 2008 book could be added just for good measure behind the Cheke 2013 source, but that would be besides the point, as it is already cited chronologically before. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I agree but I am willing to concede that I may be missing something and will defer to you on this. - RIHG

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 12:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

I linked sternum in the lead, and Cécile Mourer-Chauviré. In the lead, One contemporary account described it as gray should be One contemporary account described it as "gray", since you otherwise use BE spelling, and you are presumably quoting from great numbers of flamingoes and gray teal and geese. Otherwise, all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't know she had an article, so I have a lot more of articles to link her in now! And fixed to "grey". FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I find these extinct bird articles to be very interesting, although I don't know that I'll have much to add with Jimfbleak already having taken a look here. Hog Farm Talk 03:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments are welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also pointed out that two reports mention both sarcelles and canards in addition to geese on Réunion" - I think the meaning of the French(?) terms as relates to this needs to be glossed a little clearer. Are these two distinct terms for types of ducks?
Found a footnote in another source that translated it as "teals" and "wild ducks", added it here. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to the extend that it can be detected in their skeletons." - should this be extent?
Yep, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1681 ship's log of the British President mentioned gray teals on Mauritius, the only account that described its appearance" - I would drop the link to the President here. I was able to get ahold of the article via the Wikipedia Library (although the pagination is different) and the source doesn't seem to specify that this was a warship. It is also possible this is from the ship's log of a merchant vessel. In particular the Loe Bar Wreck is believed to have been a ship named President which journeyed between the British Isles and East India and which was in operation in the early 1680s
Oh, good catch, link removed... Will have to remove it from some related articles as well. FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a reference to a "shelgoose" in the Behaviour and ecology an error for sheldgoose?
Yikes, yes, fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Dutch governor of Mauritius Roelof Deodati declared them extinct in 1698. " - this appears to be drawn from "Like the ducks they were plentiful in 1681 but declined rapidly thereafter, Leguat (1708) listing them as rare in 1693, and Deodati stating categorically in 1698 that they were extinct (Barnwell 1948)" but that's in a paragraph about the sheldgoose and reads to me that the 1698 date is referring to the sheldgoose? The FA Mauritius sheldgoose is using the 1698 date to refer to the sheldgoose. The source here (Cheke) in the paragraph regarding the duck states "The last mention is by Governor Deodati in 1696 (Barnwell l948)."
Whoops, you are absolutely right, I was confused by a lot of repetition in the source (also solves an issue raised by others earlier), changed to "and the Dutch governor of Mauritius Roelof Deodati was the last to mention them in 1696", as well as related fixes. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This overall is in quite good condition. Hog Farm Talk 03:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you found a lot of weird stuff everyone else overlooked! FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please verify that pp. 50-51 for Cheke 1987 is correct? I'm comparing to this where the p. 95 for the Cowles chapter matches. But pp. 50-51 is about the Réunion native fody and various passerines and swifts. In this copy, I'm seeing "Cheke added that since the number of men on these islands was low in the 1600s, it is unlikely they would have been responsible for the extinction of widespread animals, but those limited to certain habitats, like for example ducks and geese, may have been exterminated by hunting, though reduced breeding would probably be due to introduced animals." supported on p. 19 but everything else supported on pp. 34-35. The pagination at Mauritius sheldgoose matches what I would expect for this source based on the previously-noted findings. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I'm at a loss for what went wrong there, but I've corrected it to the actual pages. The strange thing is I'd assume it was a mistake copied over from Mauritius sheldgoose, but that shows the correct pages already... FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"and the lower manubrial spine (a projection from the sternum) is narrow and elongated in the Sunda teal but more elongated in the Mascarene teal." from the article but in the source is "the carina projects further anteriorly and the ventral manubrial spine (spina externa of Newton and Gadow) is narrow and elongated in A. gibberifrons and is more elongated than in A. theodori." - so if I'm reading the source right, the ventral manubrial spine is more elongated in the Sunda teal than in A. theodori which is the opposite of what we have in the article?

Because of the issues noted above I checked all of the citations to Mourer-Chauvire 1999 except for the one where it is blended with the Hume & Walters book and noted only the above item. It's possible that I'm misreading the source regarding the ventral manubrial spine, but if not I'm a bit uncomfortable with the issue rate with the sources with this, the pagination item, and then the 1696 vs 1698 date issue. Hog Farm Talk 01:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are right with the manubrial spine issue, which I've changed to "is narrow and elongated in the Sunda teal, more elongated than in the Mascarene teal." I must have overlooked "than", but yeah, I am not happy with these errors, and I just noticed the earlier pagination error for the Cheke 1987 source was because I had accidentally added the relevant page range from Hume & Walters 2012 there when I added that source (I had replaced the 2017 edition of that book, as that's where its statements were first mentioned, to keep the chronological flow). As I see this article still needs a source review, I've called for a particularly detailed one to assure everyone: Either way, many thanks for the close look! FunkMonk (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm happy with the article content itself barring any other needed changes coming up from the sourcing. Unfortunately, the local university library for me does not have The Lost Land of the Dodo on hand or I'd be able to check that, which would account for most of the sourcing with Mourer-Chauvire and Cheke already checked. Hog Farm Talk 03:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that can be arranged, if you send me an email? FunkMonk (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent an email. Hog Farm Talk 01:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review part #2

Might want to check for additional sources. I don't have access to Extinct Birds but it's well cited. #2 doesn't show 1696? #3 backs some part of the text, but the other must be in #4 and I can't access that one. #4 seems a reliable source. I don't see palatable on the pages given for #6. Can't check 9-11; someone else will have to. Are #13 and #12 actually talking about this teal species? #15 might be a little too old to source a statement about today's situation from. None of the sources seem inappropriate to me, there might be some inconsistency in identifiers but that's for the bots to solve. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Palatable was to paraphrase lines like " They are good [to eat][" and "Early visitors to all three islands found the birds tame and easy to kill, and had no trouble rounding up the numerous tortoises; the accounts show that human predation was unrestrained", but perhaps too specific, so I've changed to "Travellers to Mauritius and Réunion considered the local birds tame and easy to kill, and ducks and geese were listed among the favourite prey of hunters there." FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 13 says "Ducks, geese and flamingos were abundant at certain times of the year", and Hume 2012 cites this paper in the section about Anas theodori to support it moving seasonally (both sources are by Hume). FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While citation 15 is old, it still reflects the current situation, but I've now added this 1998 one that confirms it: "Protection from habitat destruction alone cannot guarantee its conservation and the damage already sustained is not fully reversible. Therefore, the ideal for conservation—maintenance or restoration of self-sustaining populations of all species in native ecosystems—is presently unattainable" FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can provide additional sources via email. FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Funk has sent me copies of the relevant parts of [1] and [4]; I was able to get ahold of a copy of [9] myself. As noted above, I checked all usages of [9] (Mourer-Chauvire) except the paragraph shared with [1]; I've since been able to confirm that paragraph as well. I can confirm that all material cited individually to [1] is found in that source (the ebook version did not contain page numbers, but it's all in there within a two-page spread). Once I figure out how to open an epub file I'm confirm [4] (probably tomorrow). I have already verified the citations to the two chapters in the 1987 book. Hog Farm Talk 02:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the Mascarene teal was similar to both the Sunda teal and Bernier's teal, the latter is brown, while one description indicates the Mascarene species was grey like the Sunda species" - is the bit about the Bernier's teal being brown in [12]?
That is supported by both sources used, but it's mainly from Lost Land of the Dodo page 66 (you can find it in the file by searching "Subfossil bones show the Mascarene Teal was closely related to Bernier’s Teal") and a footnote on page 295 (find it by searching "A. theodori’s colour was noted by the crew of the President in 1681"). Source 12 is mainly just to back up the info about the "grey teal group" from Lost Land, since that book itself cites 12. FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first paragraph, what do I need to look for in [4] as opposed to [3]?
The only thing source 4 adds to it is the word "subfossil". FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No issues noted with [4] is the bit about the color of the Bernier's teal being brown is in [12]. Have not checked the paragraph split between [4] and [3] or the paragraph listing the other birds on the island as it is a real struggle for me to cross-check lists where I don't know the scientific names of the birds off the top of my head. Hog Farm Talk 20:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answered about source 4 and 12 above. Note I just added the text "as do related teals" sourced from Lost Land of the Dodo page 40, findable by searching "Bernier’s Teal Anas bernieri nests in tree holes". FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel comortable enough to support. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, is the source review a pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from RoySmith

I don't know if I'll do a full review, but I'm really curious about that caption of File:The Farm at Foul Bay.jpg. Why do you say it may show two Mascarene teals? RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is explained by the text: "and suggested two other waterbirds depicted in a stream could be cormorants or ducks. He noted that no visitors had mentioned living cormorants, while the Mascarene teal was still abundant at the time." FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make sense to move the image to be next to that paragraph? RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not that far from the relevant text, and that section would otherwise be cluttered and the description section empty, but a possible depiction of the bird is quite relevant in the section about its appearance, so I think it's the best solution as is, though I did consider having the text about the image under description too at one point. FunkMonk (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SECTIONLOC says "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section". I spent a fair amount of time hunting around trying to figure out how the caption tied into the text before I gave up and posted my drive-by. I don't think the typical reader will have any idea that this image goes with some text in a previous section, so moving the corresponding text into the Description section does seem like the right thing to do. I would also put something like "thought by Anthony Cheke" instead of the vague "may" in the caption to give readers a further clue. RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it down there and created a "contemporary records" subsection for it and some accounts. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, wouldn't it make more sense to move the image to the new contemporary records section? RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The overall image layout would look unbalanced, and technically it's in the same section either way. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OJJ

Thanks for another bird funeral, bro! :) I would like to translate it to cswiki. Some comments from me:

Thanks, this isn't exactly on of the superstars of extinct birds, so the literature is a bit more cobbled together and obscure. FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A few inadequate accounts mentioned a small duck on the Mascarene Islands of Mauritius and Réunion in the 17th century" – Isn't it better to add directly that there is no physical evidence from that time?
The sources don't state this specifically, I guess since it's implied by simply mentioning accounts. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. OJJ (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also pointed out that two reports mention both sarcelles (teals) and canards (wild ducks) in addition to geese on Réunion, which may indicate there were two species of duck" – How many anatids come from Réunion according to contemporary records, please?
Three, the two ducks and the Réunion sheldgoose. All are mentioned in the article where it makes sense. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but in this part of article it is unclear for me, because common names of anatids are inconsistent (in my native language too). A wikilink or micro-focus on the Réunion sheldgoose would therefore probably be better. OJJ (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think that would break with the chronological flow of the section, as neither of those other species had been described at the time, and the sheldgoose isn't really relevant to the issue of other ducks. The second duck species is chronologically covered at the end of the section, when it was identified further. FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British ornithologist Hywel Glyn Young stated in 1996 that the exact relations of the species was uncertain, though it could be a southern teal (term for a small, wild duck) or a mallard" – Southern teal is in my interpretation a small anatid bird from southern hemisphere, in contrast with a mallard as a north hemisphere anatid. I think it would be more reasonable to write it as
Here the parenthesis is just to explain "teal". So I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting, to gloss mallard? FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, that this term may be interpreted as a some living anatid species naming "southern teal". But "southern" is a attribute for some teal from southern hemisphere (in contradiction with mallard from north), isn´t it? OJJ (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but since the source doesn't clearly establish a dichotomy, it's probably too much interpretation on our side if we do... FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They furthermore listed additional bones of the species in the National Museum of Natural History in France" – What is the relationship of the bones from the Marais de l’Ermitage and from the MNHN?
While the source doesn't specify, the bones in France must be from Mauritius, as this is the only place remains were known before those from Réunion (from Marais de l’Ermitage), which they are compared with. I'm not sure what to do about that, though, as this is not stated in any sources, and annoyingly there is nothing about the history of those fossils. But I have reworked the text to imply better that they were from before the Réunion discoveries, how is that? FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. OJJ (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2008, Cheke and the British palaeontologist Julian P. Hume noted that while the Mascarene teal was similar to both the Sunda teal and Bernier's teal, the latter is brown, while one description indicates the Mascarene species was grey like the Sunda species; these species belong to a group called "grey teals", indicating dispersal from the east. Several of these types were previously thought to be races of Bernier's teal, but are now considered full species. Cheke and Hume therefore raised the possibility that the Sunda teal bones Mourer-Chauviré and colleagues had used to compare with the Mascarene teal actually belonged to the Australian grey teal (A. gracilis) instead." – So "grey teals" was considered as subspecies of brown Bernier's teal? But how does that logically relate ("therefore raised") to the split of Sunda teal from Australian grey teal? This paragraph is incomprehensible.
It is certainly confusing, yes. All these were earlier considered subspecies of the same species, hence specimens that were once labelled as that species may not belong to it under current classifications, which means later studies relying on older labels may have issues. Here's the exact quote from the source: ""Livesey (1991), Young et al. (1997), Mourer et al. (1999, 2006); Bernier’s Teal is Anas bernieri and the Sunda Teal A. gibberifrons. A. theodori’s colour was noted by the crew of the President in 1681 (Barnwell 1950–54, Cheke 1987a); although the Madagascar species can look grey at a distance (Morris & Hawkins 1998, Roger Safford pers. comm.) the sailors would have been describing dead specimens seen close-up. Several forms formerly considered races of A. gibberifrons are now treated as full species (e.g. Young et al. 1997), so the bones used by Mourer et al. (1999) may have come from the Australian Grey Teal A. gracilis rather than A. gibberifrons as currently defined." FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! "Several of these types were previously thought to be races of Bernier's teal, but are now considered full species." from yours article is in contradiction with "Several forms formerly considered races of A. gibberifrons are now treated as full species." from the original source, because Bernier's teal is not A. gibberifrons! :) OJJ (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Please check this point. OJJ (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, changed to Sunda teal. This whole point about grey vs. brown teal species groups and common names vs. binomial names was confusing to write... FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1999, the French palaeontologist Cécile Mourer-Chauviré and colleagues reported the front part of a sternum, an ulna (a lower arm bone), and a tibiotarsus (a lower leg bone) from the Marais de l’Ermitage swamp on Réunion which they assigned to the Mascarene teal, since the tibiotarsi were identical (the assigned sternum was too poorly preserved for comparison)." ... "Based on the front part of a sternum (breast bone), a pair of coracoids (part of the shoulder), eight humeri (upper arm bones), and a pair of tarsometatarsi (lower leg bones) in bad condition, they determined the existence of a duck differing from those of Madagascar while being similar to Meller's duck (Anas melleri) of that island, but smaller." – These texts are contradictory because the tibiotarsus is not among the first bones.
I assume it's just comparing assigned bones instead of with holotype bones, which is of course far from ideal, but not something we can do much about. Likewise, that a skull was reported in 1987 but never described or figured is also pretty baffling... FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Confusions should be explained, or the article should avoid them. "In 1999, the French palaeontologist Cécile Mourer-Chauviré and colleagues reported the front part of a sternum, an ulna (a lower arm bone), and a tibiotarsus (a lower leg bone) from the Marais de l’Ermitage swamp on Réunion. By comparing these with bones of the Mascarene teal held in the National Museum of Natural History in France, which include a coracoid, four humeri, an incomplete juvenile carpometacarpus (part of the hand), a tibiotarsus, and two juvenile tarsometatarsi, they assigned the Réunion bones to the Mascarene teal, since the tibiotarsi were identical (the assigned sternum was too poorly preserved for comparison)." is more logical interpretation than comparing with original bones (if that's right...). So the researchers assumed that bones from Réunion come from the same (= Mauritius!) species as described by Newton & Gadow (because influence by Sieur Dubois' observations?). I guess (more likely), that they compared bones from Réunion with bones from Mauritius (bones from the above museum!), because it was believed that there was only one teal in Mauritius (!) – and only from Mauritius come the fossil remains (!). Only one teal in Mauritius = no comparison with the original bones, is not it? OJJ (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting should be changed, but here is what the source says: "The anterior part of the sternum from Reunion is poorly preserved and does not allow detailed comparison. The Reunion tibiotarsus (Figure 7r), however, is absolutely identical in shape and dimensions to that from Mauritius and therefore must belong to the same species." It doesn't give other justifications for referral. By the end of the section it says "The only mention of small anatids on Reunion is by Dubois", but it doesn't specifically use it as justification for anything. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Current version is good. I tried to summarize (for discussion) the meaning of Mourer-Chauviré's research and steps of this; also in line with my other comments. I understand that a deeper synthesis could be the original research... OJJ (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I agree it's a strange logic, and they also seem to rely in the original old illustrations and measurements of the type specimen series instead of reexamining it directly, which is not ideal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on the known bones, the sternum was 27.7 mm (1 in) wide and 21.7 mm (1 in) deep, the coracoid 41.1–42.5 in (104–108 cm) long, the humerus 69.6–73.1 in (177–186 cm) long, the ulna 63 mm (2 in) long, the tibiotarsus 71 mm (3 in) long, and the tarsometatarsus 42 mm (2 in) long" – ????? According to the source, it is millimeters. How did you manage to make inches out of that and convert them to centimeters? :)
Ouch, thanks, seems I had copied the conversion templates from another articles without changing the parameters, now fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
:) So funny inaccuracy, humerus tall as a mighty guy... :) OJJ (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, surprising no one else noticed until now... FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As in the Sunda teal, the external condyle (round prominence) on the lower end of the ulna extends by a narrow, well-defined lip, which rises up along the shaft" – Is "Lip" the correct anatomical term here?
That is what the source says, in osteology this is used for raised edges/borders on a bone, I've added this in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thank. OJJ (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cheke and Hume suggested in 2008 that, like the local starlings and parrots, the Mascarene teal possibly nested in tree holes, as do related teals" – Which teals are considered as a relatives in this context? A Sunda teal?
It lists Bernier's teal and Indo-Australasian "grey teals", which includes the Sunda teal. So the ones already mentioned in the article as relatives, or do you think they should be listed again? FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A Sunda teal should be mentioned, I think. OJJ (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To not veer too far from the source (which doesn't specifically mention the Sunda teal, only the group it belongs to), I added "like the related Bernier's and Indo-Australasian teals". FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. OJJ (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OJJ (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC) / OJJ (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC) / OJJ (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC) / OJJ (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC) / OJJ (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fact check OJJ. I liked the cm/mm bit! Do feel free to run a similar eye over any other biology articles at FAC you notice. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a useful review, and I have no doubt you're competent enough to judge this or other nominations about such subjects if you are interested. Bird nominations are a rarity these days, though. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: And de iure: if the above-mentioned problem with the Bernier's teal will be resolved, I am going to support the nomination. OJJ (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You devil! :-) Thanks OJJ. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Let's get this promoted! Reviewing because the nominator has a review-to-nomination ratio higher than 5.0

  • " One contemporary account described it as "grey"." What is being described as grey? The bird, or the bones, or something else?
Added "the bird". FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It possibly nested in tree holes like related teals." Maybe rephrase to "It possibly nested in tree holes similar to related teals."?
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox check: looking to see if the information in these sections is cited in the article body. Only concerns are listed below:

  • "also known as the Mauritian duck and Sauzier's teal," this is not cited in the article body.
I don' think it's common practice to do this, while the names are used in the sources. But I'll try to look around. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species was considered highly palatable by travellers; " The article body says "Travellers to Mauritius and Réunion considered the local birds tame and easy to kill, and ducks and geese were listed among the favourite prey of hunters there." I think it can be more explicit in the article body that travellers ate the birds, as it only lists them as a favourite prey (and thus were only hunted for sport, not eaten).
Ah, I had actually removed this wording from the article body and I guess forgotten it was also in the intro, now likewise changed to "The species was listed among the favourite prey of hunters". But yes, the sources don't explicitly say "they were eaten" though it is heavily implied by them being hunted as a favourite prey. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scientific classification" in the infobox is not cited: some of the species names are cited in the article but not others. Should there be a citation at the end of the title, or after the species name to verify this information?
If you're referring to anything above the species binomial name, that is an centralised, automatic taxobox template that is transcluded to all pages about related species, not something specific to this article. I don't think these higher taxon parameters are (or can be cited) in any other featured article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when ready. Z1720 (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mascarene_teal/archive1&oldid=1332630282"