Talk:Kea

Untitled

The change I made was a quick fix to a display problem in IE5.5 on a wide screen in a display with high resolution. The table then slipped around to the left of the picture and became scambled up with the text, including overwriting it. This is a minimal change to fix the problem. However there might be a more aesthetic way to do it. hawthorn

Keas are Kool. --GringoInChile 04:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing info: how big are they? (adult length, wingspan, weight) What's they're typical lifespan? etc. StringCheesian 22:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It says that 'keas need animal fats to survive', but I thought keas were originally able to obtain the amount of fatty proteins and so forth from certain plants they ate, and it was only as those became scarce with humans populating the area that keas had to adapt (and therefore start preying on live animals). Also, I think that most of the domestic animals they preyed on were sheep, in the same sort of area... though I'm not entirely sure. -Ouwl

Philip Temple says, on page 38 of The Book of the Kea (1996), that keas may now need human food sources in some areas due to missing nutritional elements. This is phrased tentatively, and he goes on to imply introduced browsers (e.g. deer, goats etc) would be to blame, not humans directly. He also discusses the fact that keas are observed to eat insects, worms, grubs, eggs and even chicks without seeming to indicate this is at all unnatural, and says that getting adequate fat and protein from plants would usually require "intensive and continual foraging". -- Avenue 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence

I just saw a documentary about Keas on TV that showed how intelligent they are. I'm amazed of how their understanding of mechanisms and even grasping abstract thinking. My thesis is in AI so this has seriously atracted my attention.

Make over

just started to redo the page, will split it up in several sections. i am currently working with the species and glad for any input. Please allow some time to finish up. Started on November 5. --Mpesendorfer 20:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Photos

It would be great to have a photo of a Kea showing its nice red feathers, even better if it was in flight. Soupisgoodfood 13:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

in the meantime, I've added an illustration from showing the red underwing feathers. Kahuroa 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The table

Any ideas for reorganising the table of foods consumed so that it is wide rather than long? Might try it out on the Māori wikipedia and see how it goes Kahuroa 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to Avenue's version

Sorry Casliber, but your edits had the Kākāpō and the Kākā and the Antipodes parakeet forming a clade distinct from all other parrots. That seems highly unlikely and was not the sense of the article up till then, and because several edits had been made, I thought it was simpler to revert to Avenue's version rather than try and do a partial restore. Kahuroa 05:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for that - the other stuff I'd done in terms of headings and making a 2nd para is trying to stremaline this page with the other biology articles that make it to FA status. I will try to tease out the stuff.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the nice painting (if we have it on the left) will make the top too crowded if it is overlaps horizontally wth the taxoboxcheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To-do List

The article is shaping up nicely actually and could make it to FA like Kakapo has.

Some obvious things to do:

• embellish description
• polish and expand lead (I figured list of NZ parrots better in distribution)
• reorganize food table...

thoughts?

(Modelling the page on Kakapo may be a good idea...)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Galleries as such seem to be frowned on - better is a link to Wikicommons and use images next to relevant text (eg nice painting next to description) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed the intro a bit: disagree that the Kea is "drab". It might not be bright blue and yellow, but it is a beautifully coloured bird. Also removed the sentence from the intro about the theory about the Kākā, Kea and Kākāpō forming a distinct group, since further on in the text it is pointed out that this theory has not won acceptance as of yet, and so it is wrong to highlight it in the opening sentences. Restored missing macrons etc, and removed extraneous -s from the plural. Kahuroa 14:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on the intro. Yep, good points (and ditto about drab). cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

I moved the gallery off the page and added a link to the commons. We need to make sure that these images are moved to the commons and then we can get rid of theme here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Arthur's Pass
• Mt. Cook National Park
  Mt. Cook National Park

Not the only alpine parrot

I clarified the references to the Kea being the only alpine parrot in the world. A few species of Andean parrots (notably parakeets in the genus Bolborhynchus, see: avianweb) also range well above tree-line. And in the tropical Andes, treeline is much higher than the elevations that were listed here for the Kea. I've seen B. aurifrons near 3,800 m.a.s.l.. Fredwerner 12:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks, that's really interesting. Kahuroa 18:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

However the point that should be made is that Kea are the only true alpine parrot in that they can nest and survive above the tree-line. New Zealand is know for a very low tree line which is often at 1,000m and as such still denotes the limit of the alpine region. The other parrots mentioned still live and operate below the tree line and are therefore not try alpine parrots. Gangang's in Australia are a good example of this, living in the snow at tree line but not all year round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent Barrett (talk • contribs) 09:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

...now about that table..

OK folks, what shall we do about the table? I'd summarise it but I have no idea which plants are more notable or important than any others. Shall we archive it on the talk page, modify it or...what? Otherwise I think it is a good GA candidate.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We could get rid of the table or as you say, summarise it. You can download the issue of Notornis which contains the article and the table here. Here's what precedes the table (it's Table 4, on pp 111-112) in the article (this from the bottom of page 110:

FOOD One hundred and ninety-nine items of food seen to be taken by Keas were recorded (Table 4). Fruits of Coprosma pseudocuneafa were frequently eaten (68 occurrences), although this may be related to availability. Up to 53 seeds of C. pseudocuneata were counted in some faeces, with seecis of other species less abundant. During peak fruiting periods of C. pseudocuneata most faeces consisted entirely of these seeds and fibrous parts of the fruit. Voided C. pseudocuneata seeds germinated on moist soil. In February 1965 following this observation, faeces containing seeds of C. pseudocuneafa, Cyathodes fraseri, Muehlenbeckia axillaris, Pentarhondra pumila, Podocarpus nivalis and Astelia nervosa were collected and covered with soil in an enclosure to determine the general effects on viability of passage through the Kea's gut. All except A. nervosa germinated within two months but all died soon after a heavy snowfall in April. A. nervosa had not germinated after 18 months.

There is a bit more about food on pages 113-4:

The frequency with which some foods are eaten (Table 4) does not necessarily rzflect preference. Coprosma serrulata, for example, is rare at Cupola Basin, but was observed being eaten six times; it could thus be ranked as a preferred food. Conversely, C. pseudocuneata is widespread throughout Cupola Basin, it bears fruit between September and June (subject to snow conditions) and 114 NOTORNIS Vol. XVII is the most prolific berrying plant in the area. High use may therefore reflect availability rather than preference. At Arthur's Pass, Canterbury, Jackson (1960) notes that the fruits of C. pseudocuneatas are unattractive to Keas. Often only a small part of the food selected was eaten. On the isolated occasions when Keas were seen catching grasshoppers (Table 4), they ate few in relation to the numbers caught. Similar wasteful behaviour occurred when flowers, branchlets and entire plants were removed.

Hope that helps. Kahuroa 06:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Classification section

Wouldn't this be better moved onto and merged with the same section on the Nestor (genus) article? Some of it is already there, and if it's needed here, why isn't it also repeated on Kākā? And the meaning of the bit about 'fossil evidence' contradicting the DNA study is not clear to me - how does it contradict. Plus it needs a citation Kahuroa 02:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Repetition is ok, so putting it on Kaka is cool (I presume we're working this up to FAC?) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ug - I cna't even remember if it was me or someone else who put the bit about fossil evidence. I do vaguely recall reading it somewhere. Nevermind, will have a look sometime. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers bro, clarity is king... Kahuroa 07:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheep

Was there any actual evidence that the Kea attack sheep? I've heard it described as a 'myth' by some, and the only refs here are to early 20th C materials (although shooting was legal til 86). I don't know enough either way to change the text, but would appreciate feedback. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Their carnivorous tendencies are dealt with in a well references book, reviewed here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There's some great nighttime video footage of them attacking sheep in the documentary Kea - the smartest parrot?, about 16 minutes in. Seeing is believing. It also shows kea preying on Hutton's Shearwater chicks. -- Avenue (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

--203.97.222.233 (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Steph Sander!!--203.97.222.233 (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How does a 1 kg kea go about attacking and killing a 160 kg sheep anyway? 194.100.223.164 (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A Kea will attack and eat part of the sheep, but the bird doesn't directly kill it. Our section on Diet covers this. If you can't access the video cited there, this picture gives a reasonable portrayal of a Kea attack. -- Avenue (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The sheep photo in the article shows a deep wound close to the kidneys. Wild dogs, of all sorts, instinctively attack and eat the the kidneys first. Other portions are then consumed. It is considered clear evidence for dingo attacks in Aus., although feral domestic dogs will also do this.203.213.62.197 (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography

There's a bibliography here that might be useful. -- Avenue (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Article errors

This page contains some serious errors in the kea behaviour. I currently work this this species and have done for two years on the lowland forest habitat of westland and the breeding season alone is incorrectly references. The dates are mixed. Breeding starts in July and extends into January! not the other way around. Please help me to get involved with this editing process as an active expert int his field. Cheers.

--Brent Barrett 22:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Nestor notabilis -Fiordland, New Zealand-8b.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Nestor notabilis -Fiordland, New Zealand-8b.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 8, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-09-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Kea (Nestor notabilis) is the world's only species of alpine parrot, found on New Zealand's South Island. Measuring around 48 cm (19 in) in length, it is mostly olive-green with brilliant orange plumage under its wings and has a large narrow curved grey-brown upper beak. Its omnivorous diet includes carrion but consists mainly of roots, leaves, berries, nectar, and insects.Photo: Mark Whatmough

This picture was the 'lead' image in the taxobox, but although a great image, we normally use an image with higher background/foreground contrast. Perhaps this image can be re-inserted elsewhere in the article. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Kea plural: Circus

The source is a website that seems like its literally making up random words for every bird. Cannot corroborate the other way, that circus means plural of Keas or birds from Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, or Wiktionary. 67.173.189.206 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean the collective noun, not plural. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Alpine

Could Moriori explain why he objects to my adding 'truly' when it's obvious there are other alpine parrots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.28.210.192 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The article said the "Kea is the world's only alpine parrot". You added the word truly which is redundant. If there are other alpine parrots as you claim, then you can't say this one is the only truly alpine parrot. The others are alpine parrots, or they are not. Moriori (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the section above #Not the only alpine parrot, the article should explain what is meant by "alpine parrot". Perhaps the sentence in the lede should read along the lines of:

The kea is the only parrot to nest above the tree-line, which has led to it being called the only alpine parrot.

Would this be acceptable to both of you?-gadfium 08:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any verifiable sources we can use to back those assertions up? - ie that it is the only parrot to nest above the treeline etc? Accuracy is the goal here and Moriori is right about only AND truly. Generally it's risky to claim 'the only' when it really seems to be one of a few alpine parrots. The suggestion above that 'alpine' implies above the snowline isn't so necessarily - see OED. It just means 'of the high mountains' and the Andes beat the Southern Alps. Kea also forage and probably nest below the tree line too btw - they interact with people and cars for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.28.210.192 (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Gadfium's suggestion is fine if we can adequately source it, but a quick google wasn't very rewarding (a science site used as a teaching aid in NZ had this to say --"Parrots have curved bills (beaks), strong legs and webbed feet"). Wow.

Incidentally, what attracted me to this was that when I read the sentence containing "the world's only truly alpine parrot", it immediately grated because the adverb "truly" was used instead of the adjective "true". I would have changed "truly" to "true" but also noted the redundancy and contradiction, so removed it. Is all. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC) I e-mailed the "webbed feet" science site, and they have corrected it. Moriori (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the 'truly' was a misguided attempt to tone down the 'only' which grated on me. BTW one of Andean parrots likes to take snow baths apparently barred parakeet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.40.139 (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Re gadfium's suggested solution, we still have no proof that they actually nest above the treeline to any great extent rather than just at high altitude "near" the treeline. What does near mean? Under the tree-line but near it? Over but near? Under and over? This article [1] says on page 12: "Kea nest mostly near the tree-line where possums are rare." and on page 10 "Kea mainly forage near the tree line, so nest sites in these areas are likely to be favoured over those at lower altitude which are further away. Because kea populations have declined, increasing proportions of the remaining birds should be able to nest in productive high altitude sites." and on page 8: "All nests sites were either on the ground, under large boulders (16%), amongst jumbles of rocks (24%), in cavities in rock bluffs (40%), in holes amongst the roots of trees (16%), or in hollow fallen trees (4%)." As well as the South American parrot species I mention above which inhabit the high Andes, at least one of them liking to take snow baths, Buller described the range of Malherbe's kakariki as extending into alpine areas, see Notornis [2], and in fact Buller named it the alpine parakeet: Platycercus alpinus (p29). Also [3]. Just some food for thought.

I made substantial additions to the section on human feeding

I added to the section on human feeding because it was highly biased and unbalanced. The objectivity of wiki articles is of the utmost importance. The section on the alleged harm of Kea feeding is based solely on speculation. The reference simply lead to more speculation without any evidence. There is no indication whatsoever that such feeding is harmful to the bird in any way. In fact, while no benefit from such feeding can be proven either, the difficulty of their search for food certainly lends more plausibility to the opposing view that any supplemental calories would be helpful to the survival of this highly endangered bird attempting to survive in a habitat with very little food. The fact that so few chicks survive to adulthood might also be blamed on the difficulty of finding food. Certainly the BBC documentary seems to imply something like that.

The wording of the original was completely ridiculous in that it actually asserted that the harm of human food has been scientifically proven. That is simply not the case. If that were the case I would expect a reference to an actual study and not to an op-ed piece from a biased organization, however well intentioned. Captive parrots are often fed exactly the sort of "junk food" that the referenced source claims is harmful and yet these same captive birds tend to outlive their wild counterparts eating a healthy "natural" diet. Anyone who believes that roots, leaves, berries, insects, and occasional sheep fat is healthier than human food should try living on that for a while themselves. These are intelligent animals. You can't blame them for preferring human food. Not only does it probably taste better to them it is probably no less healthy than their "natural" diet and might even be more healthy.

I believe this sort of bias results from an unscientific and almost religious belief that wild animals should not be influenced in any way by human beings. That there are wild animals and domesticated animals and that the two categories should remain rigid and forever unchanging. Some people would seem to prefer that the species go extinct rather than influence it at all in a pigeon-like direction. I would much rather see Kea city birds that occupy an ecological niche similar to pigeons than see the species go extinct. It could be argued that, since it was humans who were responsible for decimating this species through the parrot equivalent of genocide, it is our responsibility to help the species in any way we can. If this means setting up food stations for them and setting up an official feeding program for them and feeding them as much as they are willing to eat then so be it. It's the least we could do for one of the most intelligent non-human species on the planet after murdering most of their kind.

Instead of discouraging human feeding perhaps the NZ authorities should be taking the opposite course and asking for donations to help increase the numbers of the species by supplementing their diet with additional calories. If it is believed that certain kinds of foods are not nutritionally adequate then by all means feed them something with more nutritional value, but don't just ignore them and hope they will automagically spring back from the near extinction that we ourselves caused and are still causing by illegally shooting them. Although smugglers seem to be ruthlessly prosecuted I would hope that sheep farmers who shoot these endangered birds would be even more ruthlessly prosecuted. Establishing captive breeding pairs for the pet trade is not even close to the same kind of "crime" as actually killing them. I should also point out that the NZ government may themselves have a conflict of interest when it comes to increasing the numbers of this species to a more viable level. It would mean more dead sheep and more vandalized cars and other mischief from these "cheeky" birds. So on the one hand they may not want them to go completely extinct, but on the other they may not want them to become too numerous either.

They never should have been shot in the first place. If the NZ government wanted a true hands-off policy maybe they should have thought of that before allowing farmers to nearly wipe out what may be the most intelligent bird on the planet. It's a bit late now and hypocritical to argue that they are wild animals that should simply be left alone when we are directly responsible for their virtual extinction. Since no pet trade is allowed for the species it also means that if they disappear from the wild they will be 100% gone. As extinct as the Tasmanian Wolf. There simply aren't enough zoos in the world to maintain any sort of viable breeding population. However there may be enough bird fanciers and breeders. Popular pet bird species are forever protected from this kind of genuine extinction. And an organization could quickly reseed a reserve for any species that becomes extinct in the wild, but is ubiquitous in the pet trade. I don't understand why no attempt has been made to at least introduce the species into other parts of the world. Are they really only able to survive in New Zealand? Of course if the Kea is seen as a symbol of New Zealand itself then I could understand the reluctance to try to get an agreement with a foreign governments to establish some viable breeding populations in other parts of the world. One of the reasons species become extinct is due to to just this sort of limited habitat.

Captive breeding programs are also an important safeguard against total extinction and once all the zoos that are interested are supplied with captive born chicks the pet trade could be supplied with some captive born chicks as well. This wouldn't seem to do any harm to the wild population since captives introduced or reintroduced into a flock don't seem to be fully accepted into their rigid society and their survival is at risk. Since they will always be outcasts they may as well be kept separately, increasing the numbers of the worldwide population even if it is not increasing the numbers of the wild population. I just hope that the fate of the Kea is better than that of the Kakapo with its meager 126 individuals left. In that case it was found that human foods were actually beneficial and increased the breeding frequency of the females. There was also trouble with rat and cat predation in the so called "preserves" that were set up. While such efforts are certainly welcome, the short sightedness and again nearly religious rigidity of an all-or-nothing survive-in-the-wild-or-don't-survive-at-all attitude is probably hurting the chances for the long term survival of the species. Birds in aviaries don't have to worry about rats or finding the right foods. Breeders don't need million dollar donations to breed the birds. Unlike zoos and government programs, they'll do it for free either to sell the babies, just for fun, or to help with a more open minded sort of conservation. The beautiful Hyacinth Macaw is also endangered, and even though (unlike the Kea) it requires an expensive specialized diet of Palm nuts and/or Macadamia nuts there are so many in the pet trade that they will probably never go completely extinct. If hand fed and raised in a human flock, Kea would probably make excellent, although difficult, pets. Probably similar in many ways to pet corvids like Crows and Ravens. Also highly intelligent and mischievous, but probably not quite as intelligent or mischievous as Kea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.105.241 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of the name

A red billed gull

A Red billed gull

It is admittedly a minor stylistic point, but the names of birds are not usually capitalized (e.g. parrot, hawk, pigeon, crow, ostrich, etc.) and there would not seem to be any reason to make an exception for the kea. Government web sites about the bird generally do not capitalize the word (except, obviously, at the beginning of a sentence); see e.g. http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/native-animals/birds/land-birds/kea/ and http://www.keaconservation.co.nz/keaendangeredspecies.html. I'll wait a few weeks for possible comment and/or discussion before I make a grand sweep of the article. Piperh (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to wait. You are correct. Do it. Moriori (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• You are straying into a fraught area! See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalisation and italicisation, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird names and article titles, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_74#WP:BIRD_and_the_Effort_to_Capitalize_.22Rhesus_Macaques.22 there are many discussions on this topic, probably best to leave it alone :-). Personally I find it odd to read "kea" instead of "Kea". I think the problem is that when you are talking about the species, the name of the species is seen as a proper-name (at least by some people). eg if talking about Kiwi as a species of bird you might capitalise it, but when talking about kiwi as a class of bird (eg when talking about sub-species) you might not. But then having it capitalised in some places, and not in other places is too much for most people! --Tony Wills (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's an extract from the lead of Ostrich -- "Ostriches share the order Struthioniformes with the kiwis, emus, rheas, and cassowaries.......The ostrich is the largest living species of bird and lays the largest egg of any living bird (extinct elephant birds of Madagascar and the giant moa of New Zealand did lay larger eggs). The diet of ostriches mainly consists of plant matter, ...... the ostrich will either hide itself by lying flat ........The ostrich is farmed around the world". Note the use of l/c. Pity they didn't mention kea, because it would have been l/c kea, not capped Kea. Nonetheless, agree with your final sentence. Moriori (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I expect there are lots of examples with and without capitalisation, the question is whether to go with the apparent Wiki Project Birds conventions or not. I ran across this question a while ago and found wiki debates going back forever. For some species like Red Billed Gull or Red billed gull, I feel I want something to indicate that I'm not talking about a red billed gull, but the Red billed gull Chroicocephalus scopulinus. I could perhaps italicise the name as red billed gull, but conventions for common names go against that as well. (of course in this case the name is often hyphenated which sort of solves the problem). --Tony Wills (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead image

I have reverted the recent change made by User:Amurfalcon in which he replaced the existing lead image. I think the previous image was better than his own image which he inserted -- the bird is missing a bit of its tail. Do other editors agree with me? I have alerted Amurfalcon to this thread. Moriori (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought the original image was a pretty bad angle and, while it may include the tail, it doesn't provide as much detail or a particularly good sense of the bird Amurfalcon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Emotive language

An anon has changed two photo captions to say kea are "vandalizing" and "terrorizing" cars and tourists. This seems inappropriate, as the intent of the birds is not clear, and the tourist in the photo appears quite happy at the encounter. It is more neutral to say they are "causing damage", and "investigating", although other neutral terms could be used. Any comments?-gadfium 00:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

We cannot know what emotions the kea had at the time the picture was taken, but I believe it's reasonable to assume that the birds in the pictures are acting with malice, judging by the various other kea activities listed on the page. 66.245.7.96 (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Re-nominating for Good Article

This article was last nominated for Good Article 10 years ago, and I think that this article has improved a lot since then. I've just nominated this for Good Article, and I will check to see if anything needs to be changed about it.KakarikiNZ (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that the lead should be longer and I’ve placed a few citation needed tags. Schwede66 18:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't find any citations for "The kea ranges...", but I've managed to (somewhat) cite the other ones. KakarikiNZ (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The Atlas of bird distribution in New Zealand would be the go-to source here. I have added it. Bit harder to access as a print book, so one might consider also citing this paper: which has a handy distribution map based on the atlas. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I added a list of tasks to do before the Good article review. KakarikiNZ (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kea/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 07:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hello, will try to do this soon. AryKun (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
• On a first look, there are a lot of issues with the article.
• The lead is far too short and does not mention nearly enough information about the species to be a comprehensive summary about it.
• The sourcing in the article is weak – several sources have dead links, while others are outdated or not reliable enough for a GA (eg the TV documentary). Ideally, most of the citing should be to peer-reviewed, scholarly journal articles. Far too much of the current references are newspapers or magazines, which are not good enough for a GA, imo.
• Many citations are improperly formatted and do not contain any links (in case of websites) or DOIs (in case of journal articles).
• The image sandwiching in the description section needs to be fixed.
• A good article to try and emulate while editing this would be Kererū.

Taxonomy

• The phrasing in the first paragraph could be made more encyclopedic.
• The Helm Dictionary (freely viewable on BHL) would be a better reference for the specific epithet.
• The systematics section feels skimpy: typically it includes the first documentation of the species, the formal description, and the etymology, along with any alternative common names, changes in the species taxonomic status (like being moved to a different genus or family), and the species' relationship with other closely related species, with a cladogram if available. See Guadeloupe woodpecker and Algerian nuthatch for examples.
• The last couple sentences explaining the Strigipoidea are way overcited, sometimes with unnecessary sources like a 20-year old book that is in no way a good reference for what our current understanding of the Strigipoidea is.

Description

• Needs information about vocalisations, nothing is currently present.
• Description also feels rather short, compared to for eg kākāpō. Although it doesn't need to be as detailed as that, a slightly more detailed description would be better.

• More to come.

Distribution and habitat

• Distribution should not be cited to news articles, but to more appropriate sources like journal articles and books.
• The opening sentence could just be merged with the following para.

Breeding

• "there was a surplus of females" → Is this really relevant, considering that this information is nearly 60 years old?
• "Isolated individuals do badly in captivity, but respond well to seeing themselves in a mirror" Has very little to do with breeding.
• " expected to be over 20 years of age" → Not related to breeding and needs to be updated since it's based on a 30 year old study.
• "The oldest known captive kea was 50 years old in 2008" → Again, very little to do with breeding and should be moved somewhere else in the Behaviour and ecology section. Also somewhat dated and needs an update.

Diet

• There are just three sentences about the kea's diet excluding sheep. While the fact that the kea attacks sheep is interesting, it should be about 10 times the size of the rest of the diet. I would expect to see more detailed information on the kea's hunting strategies, the average proportion of each food source in its diet, any adaptations that it may have developed for hunting, and any changes in its diet caused by the arrival of humans (if any of this is available).
• "Tool use behavior ... preening habits." → Not related to feeding at all.
• "proving that ... to escape" uncited

Relationship with humans

• This is almost entirely cited to news articles instead of scholarly articles.
• " The kea's ... for tourists" Uncited
• "the clown of the mountains" A nickname used once on a now-dead web page doesn't seem noteworthy.
• " Kea have ... in captivity" Uncited
• "A kea has ... tourist's passport" This is so insignificant that's it's not even worth mentioning. An encyclopedic article is not a collection of random trivia.

Cultural references

• This is just a collection of trivia that includes mentions of kea. Instead, they should mention actual cultural references, like the importance of kea in traditional Māori culture and in contemporary NZ. See for eg red panda
• "Kea are ... Shadow." dubious notability and uncited
• " The youngest ... the bird." dubious notability
• " In the video ... player's items" Completely non-notable and wikis are not reliable sources

• Honestly, at this point I'm inclined to fail the article, given that it fails nearly every GA criteria given below, and needs a substantial amount of work that doesn't seem like it could be done on a GA review timescale.
• I would recommend looking at some other bird GA's and getting a general feel for what they usually have, and asking for the help of some more experienced editors at Wikiproject Birds before renominating.
• KakarikiNZ. AryKun (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Another ping for the nominator. KakarikiNZ. AryKun (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• I will be failing the article as there are many significant outstanding issues with the article. It has been around 2 weeks since my first comments and nearly a week since I finished adding comments for the whole article, but no work has been done since. The nominator has additionally not edited since 25 July, so it doesn't seem like the problems with the article will be fixed anytime soon. AryKun (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)