Talk:Seychelles parakeet

message: *  Noting my view since several of my edits have been reverted on the grounds that it has been comprehensively reviewed as GA. I note here that  a statement like "In 2015, the British geneticist Hazel Jackson and colleagues found that the Seychelles parakeet was nested deeply within the Alexandrine parakeet group, and had diverged 3.83 million years ago" has multiple problems. First - it is a blatant contradiction if it diverged, it could not be nested "within" and then claimed to be diverged (see the two cladograms to see how the two would differ). Secondly, exactly how important is it that it was found by Hazel Jackson and the fact that she was British or a geneticist? I think encyclopaedic tone is definitely different from University-Campus-PR-style statements. The same can be said about several of the others which are in fact just not adding value since the primary author is not a parakeet specialist but is the main worker publishing it as part of their doctoral studies. The long term work on parakeets is actually being done by one of the senior/secondary authors. I am not going to contend with the revert but this is just to let editors and reviewers know. In medicine articles there is a guideline that goes like "use a review and not be a review" - unfortunately bird literature is rarely well reviewed in review-style journals but even a review of literature in a thesis will mention authors largely for citation traceability. A more detailed mention of a person would probably be only to examine something of significance, the kinds of methodology used and so on.  Shyamal (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, this should probably be moved to the article's talk page instead of being in the concluded GAN page. I can only repeat what I said in my edit summary: "it's how all other studies are presented in the article, no good reason for such internal inconsistency." And I don't see any good arguments for this inconsistency still. As for the wording, the study says "Assuming a calibration of 54 Mya, P. wardi clustered deep within the Alexandrine Parakeet P. eupatria clade and diverged 2.2 Mya... When the calibration age is extended to 80 Mya, the divergence dates also move further back in time. The P. wardi divergence increases to 3.54 Mya" This simply means that within this group, P. wardi was isolated at this time. It can be a member of the group and still have diverged from it, there is no contradiction, that's just how speciation works. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the nomenclatural implication of claiming that it is "nested" would be rather great. It would imply EITHER that eupatria is non-monophyletic or that wardi should be considered a subspecies P. eupatria wardi. The authors make neither proposal but note that there are differences in the subspecies of eupatria involved. They also note that they are using an incomplete cytochrome b locus sequence + there are tons of other parameter tweaks that can alter results in sequence matching and phylogenetic software. In this case, the conclusion is poorly worded in the original paper itself. As I said, FA and GA reviews do not be define the style and the reviewers certainly do not guarantee that they understood the methodology used. There is no real value to the reader to note one of the author's names in the text, any interested reader can go into the cited source and follow it up. There must be some value or notability of the authors to actually mention them in the actual text. That no reviewer pointed it out is not a particularly useful defence for inclusion. In most of our collaborative FA articles on bird taxa, the WP:BIRD participants have never gone with such a style of giving so much promotion to the names, nationalities and other descriptors of the authors of scientific articles. We focus on the findings.  Shyamal (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

text: No opinion on the nesting terminology, but I agree that this emphasis on the authors is unusual and distracting. Rather than saying "this is now baked in as per GA", I would rather bring the phrasing in line with general usage by removing the up-front authorship throughout. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is no general usage at all, there is simply consistency within articles, not across. You can find articles that do either, and there are no rules about this. I've included author names and introductions in all of my 60 plus FA nominations of animal articles without any complains, all went through many rounds of reviews. We can't demand such changes if they are not even based on guidelines, simply put, the writer decides, and there is more than plenty of precedent to not change anything here. It comes down to personal preference, and you're more than free to leave out author introductions when you write articles yourself. As for wording in regard to the specific paper, we simply summarise the literature, we shouldn't intepret it how we personally see fit. That's up for future researchers, if they found issues with earlier studies (and I've added plenty of such responses in other articles as they come around, see for example Mascarene parrot). FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edits