Jump to content

Talk:Kererū

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured articleKererū 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2022.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 22, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 13, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
January 19, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 15, 2021Good article nomineeListed
December 9, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article


Stars named after Kererū

[edit]

A group of editors from the Wellington Wikipedia Meetup are collaborating in order to improve this article with the intention of hopefully regaining a Good Article status. In anticipation I just thought I'd point out to fellow editors this news article about how a start was named after the Kererū. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section and information on this Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit pigeon ?

[edit]

The first sentence under description currently says: The kererū is a large, 550–850 grams (19–30 oz), arboreal fruit-pigeon.

Looking at the separate article Fruit dove, I see it has a redirect from Fruit pigeon, but none of the species listed in that article is Hemiphaga. This leads me to wonder if either (a) the description of Kereru as "fruit pigeon" is not fully appropriate, or (b) the article Fruit dove needs some work to include Hemiphaga. Perhaps it would be simpler to leave the classification to the taxonomy section, and just call it an arboreal pigeon ?Marshelec (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you've suggested User:Marshelec and have therefore removed "fruit-" and just left it as "arboreal pigeon". -Ambrosia10 (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed structure of article

[edit]

I am studying the featured articles highlighted in the Wikiproject Birds and have come up with this proposed structure of the article to hopefully help guide improvements by the Wellington Wikipedia Meetup group. Other editors, please feel free to edit and add detail.

Name

Taxonomy

Description - including of the egg, chick/juvenile & adult, including any difference between male & female of species.

Distribution - historic and current

Habitat - preferred habitat of the species

Ecology and behaviour - Have subsections on breeding, feeding and longevity. Include such things as flight description, ability to eat large fruits of endemic plant species etc.

Predators and parasites

Conservation - information on history of the conservation of species and then current conservation status. Possible subsection on citizen science projects aiming to protect or conserve the species.

In Māori culture (is there a better title for this section?) possibly "relationship to humans" - as taonga; as food; etc

Etymology - this was discussed during a Wellington Wikipedia meeting and the group decided this section should renamed

Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. A possible alternative approach to the heading "In Māori culture" is to use "Relationship with humans". An example of this heading is in the FA Song thrush and some other FA bird articles I looked at. If this approach was adopted, there could be sub-headings "As taonga", "As food", "In Māori mythology", "Citizen science projects" and "Bird of the year". Plus I have just found that an image of the kererū was on the 3rd series of our $20 banknote [1]. That could also be mentioned in this section if the heading was changed. Marshelec (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like this proposal. I could slot in "In archaeological sites" before or after "in Māori mythology".--Gertrude206 (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ambrosia10: Is it worthwhile making web archive copies of all the sources that aren't yet archived ? I know this is probably not essential for preparing this article for GA review, but I could get started on archiving if that would be generally helpful. Which ones can be left because they are in enduring, stable platforms ?? (eg JSTOR perhaps ?) Marshelec (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to. There is a "bot" that automatically does this for Wikipedia article references. Unfortunately not every website can be archived by the Internet Archive Wayback Machine as some webpages don't allow this. What I have already done is link those that have been archived and double check those that appeared not to have been archived. And yes, some I haven't bothered to check as they are in stable platforms with (hopefully!) stable url links. The links that are "bare" are because I couldn't find either a url nor an archived version of a url for the publication. If you do manage to track anything down about those particular references I'd be VERY grateful! Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I have just found another nice source that itself has useful citations. [2] I will need to go into the Alexander Turbull Library to find one of these, from the Ornithological Society of NZ News from 1993 that has details of the display flight behaviour associated with courtship (I have witnessed this behaviour myself many times - it is really impressive). This will hopefully help me to improve the content on that topic that is weak at present.Marshelec (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was also able to (eventually) contact the copyright owner of a great video clip showing courtship behaviour, and get this uploaded into Commons so I could incorporate it into the article. I think this is a useful addition - the video shows almost exactly the behaviour that was described in the content. :) The video clip is now in the section on breeding: Kererū#Breeding. Marshelec (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kererū/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mover of molehills (talk · contribs) 22:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm excited to look at this one! Just a heads up, because of my schedule it may take be a little bit longer to do, but it looks very interesting. Mover of molehills (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mover of molehills for doing this work. I and the others in the Wellington Wikimedia Group working on the article are keen to learn and improve so we're look forward to your feedback! Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do the review by category. Just so you know, I might jump around sections a little bit as I see different things, but I'll try to make it obvious where I am. Mover of molehills (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(late to the party) I originally buffed this to GA-hood in 2007. Would be keen to push on to FA-hood so be as thorough as you can. Bring it on! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mover of molehills, Just to let you know I'm currently participating in a week long (and for me overnight) hackathon which may result in me being a little less responsive. I'll attempt to check this page once a day but am likely to be very sleep deprived! Ambrosia10 (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for letting me know! Mover of molehills (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mover of molehills and Ambrosia10: Where are you two at with this GA review? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've answered all the concerns Mover of molehills has raised so far. I recognise that working through all the references on this article is a mission. I'm also grateful that Casliber has been lending a hand while I was involved in preparing and participating in the Ada Lovelace Day Women In Red 24 hour editathon. If Mover of molehills has more recommendations I'm happy to respond as soon as I can to the advice. Ambrosia10 (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ambrosia10: I have just finished leaving the last round of comments in the "verifiable without OR" section – after these, the article should be ready to promote. I really want to thank all of you for working so hard in what I know has been an extremely long GA review, and I think that the article has improved a lot. Let me know when you address these final changes! Mover of molehills (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mover of molehills: I've completed going through and editing in line with your recommendations. There's only one that I was confused about - the belt comment. I'm of course happy to edit as recommended but I am confused about what you are wanting in regard to that phrase. Also, I just want to say thanks for all the effort you've gone to in reviewing this article. You've done a fantastic and thorough job and as a result of your efforts I believe the article is much improved. Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

[edit]
Well spotted @MurielMary: and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and have combined as suggested. Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "taonga" section, since most readers will not be familiar with the traditional terms, I would suggest translating "taonga" and "iwi" to "sacred" and "tribe", and then WikiLinking them to the same pages. Mover of molehills (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given this article is written in New Zealand English and these terms are commonly used and understood in New Zealand, can I suggest the compromise of wikilinking to the appropriate Wikipedia article for those who might not be aware of their meaning. I believe it is important to use appropriate terms when discussing Māori culture and although these words can be translated into English, their meaning is lost or confused in the translation. I am of the opinion that the use of these Māori terms goes some way to ensure that Māori, when reading about their culture in Wikipedia, feel included and represented. Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood - that's a fair point. Mover of molehills (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the hunting for food section, should you say "one typed of snaring involved", or "one type of snaring was called"? Mover of molehills (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edited to read "One type of snaring used waka kererū, a trap where snares" Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: you define taha huahua twice, and in different ways, in the "hunting for food" and "use of feathers" sections. Could you make this more consistent? Mover of molehills (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - I've used the more general definition of the term - food storage containers as this is more accurate. Thanks for pointing out this inconsistency. Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest rewriting the last two sentence in the "in Māori mythology" paragraph as "As a result, the Māori believe that the colouration of the kererū comes from the colourful clothing that Māui was wearing on his journey into the underworld." Mover of molehills (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to disagree again with regard to Māori related content in this article, but to make the edit you are suggesting would, in my opinion, lose important context about role kererū play in Māori mythology. These two sentences explain very briefly the Māori mythology around the specific colouration of the kererū. Your suggestion of "colourful clothing" loses the important context about those articles including the fact they came from Maui's mother, a very important figure in Māori mythology, as well as the specific names of the two pieces of clothing, also of wider importance in Māori mythology. Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the feedback, and I'm sorry for leaving out important information there. The main reason I wanted to change that line is because it is phrased like it is giving general information about the kererū as opposed to a Māori legend. As a result, if you started with a tag like "The Māori believe", it would do the trick. Mover of molehills (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edited the start of the first of the two sentences we are discussion to "In Māori mythology, the reason ... " Ambrosia10 (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try shortening the first sentence of the "in archaeological sites" paragraph to "Kererū have been found in both inland and coastal sites throughout New Zealand." Mover of molehills (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edited that first sentence to say "Kererū remains have been found in both inland and coastal sites throughout New Zealand". Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly not sure that the third paragraph of this same section is relevant at all, let me know what you think. Mover of molehills (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused. Do you mean the paragraph/subsection about the use of kererū feathers in traditional Māori weaving? If so, then yes I do believe it is very relevant to the "Relationship with humans" section. Should the Wellington Wikimedia User group decide to attempt to get this article over the FA hurdle I suspect this is one area where more detail is able to be added. That is, the use of kererū feathers and bones in both historic and modern day Māori art and musical instruments. Or perhaps you meant the third sentence of the section "In archeological sites" ie "A genetic analysis of bones from paleontological and archaeological sites, to determine the extent of fauna and the human impact on them, identified kererū bones at seven archaeological sites"? Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Really sorry – that was a typo on my part! I meant to say the third sentence of the "in archaeological sites" section. And yes, while it's not particularly relevant to the GA application, I do agree that it would be interesting to have more info on the usage of the bird within Māori crafts in the future. Mover of molehills (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, and I'm pleased you like the edits. :) Ambrosia10 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've subsequently edited the archaeological section attempting to clarify it in relation to the other issues you have raised. Let me know if you think more work is needed. Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks great, thanks. Mover of molehills (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, in general, this section goes into a lot of detail about all the places kererū have been found. Could you try to summarize the conclusions about where their historic habitats were (and possible just move the whole paragraph into "range", as mentioned previously)? Mover of molehills (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this section is intended to summarise the presence of kererū and their likely historical context at important archaeological sites in New Zealand as well as give a summary and links to citations on the research and analysis of the same, rather than just giving information on the range of the species. I've edited the section, as well as included the sentence "These archaeological sites give insight into the interactions between humans and kererū, including the effect of Māori hunting on historic kererū populations." to attempt to clarify this. Let me know if you think this needs more work. Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think that sentence helps a lot. Looks good. Mover of molehills (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More reorganization: I think that a lot of the "current harvesting" section" is redundant with the history you outlined in the "conservation" section. Do you think you could just move the important parts of this section to "conservation?" Mover of molehills (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The motivation for making the "current harvesting" a separate section is that I'm of the opinion that it deals with issues that have a wider impact in New Zealand society. This section is dealing with the sociological and political issues between Māori and Pakeha and the rights to harvest kererū as arguably allowed under the Treaty of Waitangi. The debate surrounding the current harvesting kererū isn't just about conservation, it is about whether the Treaty of Waitangi is being honoured in deed as well as word, about tangata whenua having possession of their taonga and the effect of Crown legislation, in this case relating to kererū, affecting mātauranga (traditional knowledge) of Māori. However, what I have done is move the details relating to the various pieces of legislation to the Conservation section allowing the "current harvesting" section to cover the ongoing debate on this issue. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions or concerns. Ambrosia10 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it – now that the current harvesting section is more focused on the treaty and less about the conservation history, this looks really good. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, I've reached the bottom of the article! After the concerns above are addressed, this section will be a pass. Mover of molehills (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ambrosia10: Thank you for really going above and beyond with responding to these comments. I just wanted to apologize because I've noticed that a lot of our discussions have taken place around the Māori-related sections of the article, and I don't want it to seem like I am trying to reduce the length of these sections. I completely agree with you that Māori history is integral to the history of this bird – the changes that I want to make are more centered around moving the info to relevant sections. Thank you again! Mover of molehills (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No apology necessary! As a pakeha, I find it is very challenging to ensure appropriate Māori-related content is included in New Zealand articles and appreciate your feedback. I believe this article has definitely improved as a result of your comments. Thank YOU for all your help. Ambrosia10 (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: The second paragraph of the "Description" section is actually about behaviours (coo-ing and flying). I think this information should be moved to the "behaviour" section. What do others think? MurielMary (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is where it can get tricky - traditionally, calls are generally placed at the bottom of the description section - in essence it is facts that help identify it in the wild. Agree it is nebulous and could easily go in behaviour Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable without OR

[edit]
For some reason the link was wrong - fixed now and it is 773. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that User:Casliber. Much appreciated. Ambrosia10 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "taxonomy" section, the statement "this has since been accepted by most authorities" feels a little bit dubious to me because you only cite two websites and only one of them is immediately recognizable. I think if you changed the wording to "this has since been widely accepted" or something, it would work better. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done as suggested. Ambrosia10 (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a citation for the phrase, in the same section: "'Kererū' (which is both singular and plural) is the most common Māori name, and now the most common name used in New Zealand English." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've looked but have been unable to find a scholarly article or publication or newspaper article about the use of the term kererū. It's just the name that is used in New Zealand to commonly refer to this bird, be it in normal conversation, newspaper articles or even scientific literature. I'm therefore unsure how to reference this sentence. I've found this article about encouraging the use of the Māori bird names https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/3387.pdf but it doesn't really address this point. Do you have any suggestions on what I can do? I'm happy to rephrase the sentence if that helps? Ambrosia10 (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will prepare a table of citations to show the pattern of usage of the names in recent sources. I have a template from User:Giantflightlessbirds that I can use for this. When it is ready, I will initially post it on my talk page for your inspection, and then if it is useful, it can be reposted here.Marshelec (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at User talk:Marshelec#Name_of_Kererū_in_recent_reliable_sources. The table confirms that kererū is the common name in reliable sources, and many of the citations included in the table also show use of the word in the plural. If you think the table is useful for this review, I could repost it here - perhaps without the blank rows that I may be able to fill later, if I can visit the National Library. Marshelec (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Kererū is the name most used these days but is this really best practise and how is this not still just OR? Dracophyllum > FAC 04:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The table I created could be considered OR. However, there is another perspective. With only a small amount of effort, I have shown that the statement in the article that "Kererū is ..... the most common name used in New Zealand English" is easily verifiable. One of the sentences in WP:OR is "The statement is attributable, even if not attributed". If this applies here, then no citation is necessarily required. An alternative is to delete the sentence, but this doesn't seem necessary, because the statement is so easily verifiable.Marshelec (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is quite the same given that the example in the policy is: "paris is the capital of france." The topic of macrons is also, for some sad reason, controversial, at least based on ip edits alone. In addition, it reads "and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited," there are no sources for this claim – I searched for like half an hour online today. It is unlikely, however, that we will find a citation to support this, so it my end up being the best solution. We'll see how FAC feels about it ... Thanks, Dracophyllum > FAC 08:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Facts like this have been a headache in the past, even if obvious. The most scrupulous/conservative way is to stick exactly to facts, so we could say, "NZ government sources and guidebooks use kekeru (i.e. and sourced EXACTLY). I will check the sources...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help Marshelec, Dracophyllum and Casliber. If we do need to edit the sentence I like the solution proposed by Casliber but am also happy to be guided by Mover of molehills as what would be the best solution might be. Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the effort that all of you have put into this. @Marshelec: your table is very informative, and it does seem likely that Kererū is the most commonly used term. However, this table looks to me like meta-analysis, so I think I'm going to have to support Casliber's idea. I think it's worth noting that this issue isn't just one of sticking strictly to the rules – although Kererū is used more often in reliable sources, it's still possible that "New Zealand pigeon" is commonly used in some areas, so it's best to just say what kind of sources use "Kererū." Mover of molehills (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited that sentence of the article to say the following: ""Kererū" (which is both singular and plural) is the most common Māori name, and New Zealand government sources including those published by the Department of Conservation, scientific literature, and websites use the name kekerū for this species." and have given a citation for each of those examples. Please let me know if any of you think this could be improved. Ambrosia10 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, shouldn't the following line: "The name is increasingly spelled with the macron that indicates a long vowel," be removed then? Dracophyllum > FAC 20:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the above: I don't think that the next line should be removed, because it is a phenomenon that has been widely covered in media. @Ambrosia10: For conciseness, I would just rephrase that sentence as "Kererū" (which is both singular and plural) is the most common Māori name, and a variety of mainstream sources now use the name Kererū for the species [citations]". Mover of molehills (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
have added a general sentence (can't be specific as neither source mentions kereru specifically) about the increasing use of macrons Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edited as suggested. Thanks for the suggestion. Ambrosia10 (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with these @Casliber. Sorry to drop the ball as I've been busy helping organise the Ada Lovelace 24hr Women in Red Editathon starting today New Zealand time. Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source page is timing out for me at the moment - will look later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still timing out for me - given the concerns I found the actual Act. And changed the sentence so it JUST reflects what the act actually say and does not infer anything. The impact is mentioned in the next sentence with different source anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
lowercased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broad

[edit]
  • In general, the lead section should probably be expanded. Ideally it would touch on most of the elements in the table of contents, if only briefly, so the reader can have a good idea of what the article is about. Mover of molehills (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've increased the lede of the article. Let me know if you think I've missed anything. Thanks again for all your helpful suggestions. Ambrosia10 (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate everything that you've added, but now I feel like it might be a little bit too long. I've created a page where you can see an example of what I think is more of a "Goldilocks" length - feel free to copy this over completely or edit as desired. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help with the lede of the article. I've copied over the lede you've created with some small edits. I've kept the word taonga as it is a term commonly used in New Zealand English but to clarify for the international audience I've wikilinked it to the article giving more detail on what the word means. Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good! Mover of molehills (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "taxonomy" section, I would say "stone fruit" instead of "drupe" for clarity. Mover of molehills (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that stone fruit is much more clear. Thanks for the suggestion. Ambrosia10 (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting note: I think that the article should probably have a "history" section. I would recommend taking all of the history-themed tidbits from "taxonomy", and adding the content of the "conservation" section as a subsection. Mover of molehills (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't ever seen a history section in a bird article. When the Wellington Wikimedia Group were collaborating on editing this article I suggested following the recommended structure given in the "article sections" portion of WikiProject Birds main page. I'm of the opinion (which of course you can disagree with) that the discussion in the taxonomy section about the original description, the latin name of the species, as well as the information on subspecies is all appropriate and relevant to the taxonomy of the species. WikiProject Birds recommends that this section cover content "including subspecies, relation to related species, history of naming, alternate names, and evolution". As regards the conservation section, I have seen this structured as either a stand alone section or alternatively as a subsection under the "Relationships with humans". Given the current concern in New Zealand over the possible population decline along with the number of citizen science projects attempting to track or improve kererū numbers, I believe that the conservation section would be better left as a stand alone section. Of course I'm very happy to hear your further thoughts on editing or formatting these sections if you think there are alternative ways to improve the article. Ambrosia10 (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]

Stable

[edit]

Illustrated

[edit]

@Ambrosia10: From your userpage, I can't tell if you've done any GAs in the past, so I just wanted to let you know that nominations tend to be a lot more likely to pass if you respond to comments as they come in. I apologize if you were already planning to do that – you obviously don't need to get back on new comments every day – but I just thought it was worth leaving a note so that you're not just left with a giant page of comments at the end of the review and not enough time to resolve them. Thank you! Mover of molehills (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mover of molehills, sorry, no I haven't done a GA before and am unused to the process. Thanks for the heads up and sorry for not being more responsive. I'll be sharing your comments with the group working on this article and hopefully we'll make some progress over this weekend. Thanks for all the effort you are putting in to this as it is much appreciated. Ambrosia10 (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, am here now. I will keep an eye here as well.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: @Mover of molehills: this page is getting large - it would be good if you could strike out concerns you think have been addressed. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea, thanks. Mover of molehills (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, and thanks for being thorough, the feedback and discussion really helps Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
aaawwww, choice bro'!!! I was gonna ping someone on the chat about this! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

[edit]

Approved. Great job to everyone working on this article, and I hope you have a good time with it in FAN! Mover of molehills (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanet (incorrectly?) named after Kererū

[edit]

The article claims that an exoplanet was named Kererū after the bird but the linked article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_137388) says it was named karaka after the plant. 222.153.46.32 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The star is called Karaka and the planet is called Kererū Dracophyllum 20:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

Adding pronunciation (IPA, phonetic, or a spoken audio file) would be helpful, because many kiwis pronounce the R sounds as an ordinary vowel, but I believe it's a properly trilled yielding something like Kededu. Please correct me if I'm wrong though. Because then I'd have been mispronouncing the name of this fine fellow for years.

Chairs Adam Friedland's Soiled White Pants (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies meant "R" instead of "vowel" in above comment. Also see the early romanisation of Kerikeri - arguably much closer in correct pronunciation. Crazy how something so simple as spelling can change language. Anyway Adam Friedland's Soiled White Pants (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits

[edit]

I added this image and this one to the article. These were summarily removed by Marshalec. I intend to nominate the first one at FPC as I believe it is better suited to be the lead image, showing more of the bird, including the tail. It cannot be nominated if it is not used in the article. The second image shows the bird feeding on nikau, one of its favourite foods. Not sure that Marshelec's action is in line with Wikipedia policy. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlesjsharpThanks for responding. I agree that the front-on image with the caption Waitakere is a good image and shows more of the bird. The caption Waikatakere could be wikilinked. I suggest this photo should be substituted for the image in the Infobox. Both of the front-on images are not needed. The image of the bird feeding on nikau is excellent, and is relevant to the section on feeding, and it should be placed in that section. The retention or otherwise of the existing photo in that secxtion of two kererū in contention for space on a kowhai tree could be reviewed. However, it is an interesting and unusual photo, and at some times of the year, kererū browse on kowhai leaves, so it is relevant in the feeding section.Marshelec (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you can action that please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kererū&oldid=1253781948"