Talk:Cassowary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Simplfying[change source]

Content adapted from en-wikipedia Peterdownunder (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Have been looking at this page again and done a fair bit of editing using suggestions from Microsoft word and this website - [1]. New figures give a Flesch Reading Ease of 75.7 and a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 6.4 Peterdownunder (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Some comments which could be looked at before GA?[change source]

  1. Cassowary is sometimes capitalised, sometimes not, in the prose. I think it should be consistent.
 Done only capitalized when part of name eg. Southern Cassowary --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Not strictly the case. The lead says "Cassowaries"... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. On Firefox, the images in the first section after the lead are very untidy. Can this be improved?
It looks ok on my computer, will try to view it somewhere else --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. "genus" is not explained, nor is any of the Latin alternative names, could be very confusing.
 Done genus linked, Latin names will be done today --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Latin names not done - will need to find better references than are available on the web.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. "...photo shows the sharp claws..." not a great caption as the claws are hardly visible. Crop it if the claws are what you want to show mainly, or rework the caption a bit.
 Done Cropped photo to show claw
  1. "...has 1 wattle..." one wattle. There are other instances, numbers less than 10 should be in text.
 Done Is there are written guideline for numbers? I thought I saw one once but have never found it again. --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. "...are different to other..." different from, similar to...
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. "Females lay 3 to 8 large, ..." Females lay between three to eight...
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. All units seem to be linked except inches.
 Done used convert tag for all measurements --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. "...called a casque[3] on the to..." that link should be made a proper citation please.
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. Order citations numerically, you have "...of these ideas.[8][7]"
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. "don't know " avoid contractions - do not know.
 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. What is DNA?
 Done DNA linked
  1. "(b. 1821 - d. 1902)" is this relevant to Cassowary?
 Done Not relevant, removed --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. "painting of the cassowary[4] " that link should be a proper citation and placed after punctuation if possible.
 DonePeterdownunder (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope these comments help get the article to GA. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and shouldn´t "Cassowary's have three toes..." be "Cassowaries..." to be consistent with the lead? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Fixed that. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy?[change source]

I doubt very much that they can "run 31mph through dense forest", and if they could no researcher would be able to measure it! That's why the fact flag is up. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1104_031104_cassowary.html

National Geographic says they can run up to 30 miles per hour (50 kilometers per hour), but not in dense forest. Battleaxe9872 / 16:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Perth Zoo also gives a speed of 50kph. http://www.perthzoo.wa.gov.au/Animals--Plants/Australia/Main-Lake/Southern-Cassowary/ They do go crashing through the rainforest which is why the theory about the casque being a protective device developed. Looks like we need to change the statement to fit the facts. --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Found this at the Melbourne Museum site http://museumvictoria.com.au/melbournemuseum/discoverycentre/wild/biogeographic-regions/australasia/southern-cassowary/ - "...and can run through forest at about 50 kph." --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Crome and Moore - see refs, report that the bird "...runs at full tilt through the forest."--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true the sites do say these things. But if we're talking rain forest I don't believe it. It's incredibly difficult to measure an animals's top speed. People tried dozens of times with the cheetah, and they all had plenty of trouble. Driving a jeep at cheetah speed on the savannah is no joke, I can tell you. Savannah's not as level as one might think. Cheetahs don't run full speed until they have to, and when they do the prey jinks all over the place, spoiling the radar readings... Several efforts ended with the cheetah sitting on top of the jeep! Now think of all that in a 'dense' or 'thick' rain forest. I would hazard a guess that cassowaries can't run at 30mph because they don't need to. The ability to run fast is the result of a long history of natural selection. This presupposes that the ability makes a huge difference to survival and reproduction. I see no predator in their habitat whose evasion would require such speed.
What to do? Maybe turn "can run" into "has been claimed to run". If it were me, I'd put in a footnote about how difficult it is to measure these things. Peter is the lead editor on this page, it's up to him. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not just up to me, if the info is wrong we need to fix it. I have changed the claim to "scientists believe..." and removed the section about dense forest. My sister says they move very quickly up the dry creek beds near her house, a cassowary expressway. --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Quick, get her a speed camera! Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Biggest??[change source]

"The Southern Cassowary is the largest land animal in Australia"!! How can that possibly be true? From Kangaroo: "The Red Kangaroo (Macropus rufus) is the largest marsupial anywhere in the world. The Red Kangaroo lives in the arid and semi-arid centre of Australia. A large male can be two metres (6 ft 7 in) tall and weigh 90 kg (200 lb)". I'll eat my sporran if the bird is bigger than that. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, again Nat Geo says
"Biologists from the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society recorded these rumbles in the jungle during a recent study of the cassowary. The ostrich-like bird—which grows up to five feet (1.5 meters) tall, weighs upwards of 125 pounds (57 kilograms), and can reach running speeds up to 30 miles per hour (50 kilometers per hour)—is the world's largest forest bird."

—National Gographic

It should be changed to "largest forest bird in the world", or something similar to that. If anything else comes, I'd be tempted to list it for demotion. Battleaxe9872 / 16:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Biggest? This does look wrong, pity, because I would like to see someone eat their sporran. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
"World's largest forest bird" seems true. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It has been corrected to read "largest forest bird in the world". Thanks for finding the errors. --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Evolution of the ratites[change source]

Apologies for making another appearance. I noticed the sentence in the intro "The ratite birds were some of the first types of birds to develop". Trivially, I suppose 'develop' means evolve. Otherwise, a reader might wonder how they develop rapidly from eggs! But rather more importantly, the sentence is at variance with modern research, as outlined in en:Ratite#Evolution and systematics -- which is an excellent summary of the state of play.
What is in the page was almost consistent with the ref given, but the ref given was written by someone who hadn't kept up with the research. Peter could take that sentence out, if he feels it right to do so, and I will expand the Ratite page on Simple, so it's got more than two sentences! Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)