Talk:Indian peafowl

Untitled

I rerated this as a 'C' today as it was probably rated before we had 'C' grade anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Japanned Peahen

A note describing the Japanned peahen as being leucistic has been removed. The citation of Darwin was used which does not cover this. Additionally without evidence (other than an archaic image where a leucistic peahen is included with a "Pavo nigripennis") this would be original research and a reliable source would be a paper on the genetic inheritance of the traits. Something like doi:10.1093/jhered/82.1.64 at the very least. Shyamal (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Have checked with the genetics paper. The gene does produce leucism in the female. Shyamal (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding a Sexual Selection section under Behaviour and Ecology

I just added some new information regarding Indian peafowl's sexual selection to the existing description of male ornamental plumage in the opening of Behaviour and Ecology section. The new information includes debate on female choice of male train, detailed information about train length as an indicator of physical condition and possible evolutionary explanation of peacock train. I haven't yet worked out all the citations and links to other Wikipedia pages. I would welcome any feedback on my edition! Thank you. Tianyi Cai (talk)

It looks good. You might be interested in Dr Zahavi's informal response to the Japanese research. He quipped that this only further confirmed his theoretical framework and suggested that the fitness signal is like currency that has been devalued once the new environment in Japan is introduced... Shyamal (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Notes on Improvement

This entry is generally very well written. The introduction is of a reasonable length and briefly summarizes some key points about Indian peafowl, such as their most prominent ornate train. In examining the particularly article sections, the taxonomy and naming section puts a lot of emphasis on the history of the naming, but ignores the taxonomy aspect. It would be more complete if there was information about Indian Peafowl’s position on the phylogenetic tree. The description section is very detailed. The distribution and habitat section may benefit from more description about peacocks’ nests, i.e. whether they have a nest, who builds it and what it is like. In the mortality factor section, common parasites and diseases of Indian peacocks might be added to the predation factor alone. This article has been constantly updated. As a result, its content is relatively rich and comprehensive. Tianyi Cai (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indian Peafowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good, well-written article. I am interested here. Only some comments about this:

• Mention the binomial authority in the lead.

Fixed. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• You don't say it was described in 1758 in the "Taxonomy" section.

Added now. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• There are too many images here; I think deleting one of the images from Description (preferably the dim second one) and some from "Behaviour and ecology" would do. The "Head of a male" is absolutely not required. Keep the most suitable images.

Fixed. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• The Black-shouldered or Japanned mutation was initially considered as a subspecies P. c. nigripennis(or even a species[13]) Space before bracket, write the reference after the bracket.

Fixed. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Convert templates needed for altitudes in "Distribution and habitat".

What is the template like? --Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no special template about altitudes. I just meant to use the Template:Convert, see? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• In "Breeding", at what age do the peacocks and peahens reach sexual maturity?

Fixed. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I wish you use the image of copulation from "Gallery" in "Breeding" by replacing the image of the displaying male. It is more to-the-point. Remove the Gallery entirely.

I placed some of the pictures that I removed from the main text to the gallery. Do you think this is better? --Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have suggestions of a few changes.

• In "Description", the pic of the ocellate tail could be replaced by the 2nd pic in Gallery. You see, it represents both the main things-the bird as well as the feathers discussed here. (Correct me if I think both images show the "ocellate" feathers. Anyway, you don't tell about "ocellate" in the article, do you? Here is what I understood about the word in Wikitionary.)
• If the above suggestion is applied, then one image is left in "Gallery", which I don't think holds much importance.So we could have it omitted. Just one image would not adorn the "Gallery". Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed as you suggested. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Crosses between a male Green Peafowl, ... their offspring is often reduced (see Haldane's Rule and outbreeding depression) I wonder if this is suitable for the "Conservation and status" section.

Right, this paragraph doesn't sound like a conservation or status statement. Where do you suggest it should be put? --Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a good idea for this. As you talk about mutations and hybrids in the last part of "Description", you could make a separate section named "Hybrids ad mutations" and use this info along with the existing facts in it. Don't forget to add the pic of that graceful leucistic white peafowl, it goes well with the text. Just two more things. But you have no reference for the second line, need to fix it quickly. And where you mention "a peahen" you should also add the species name P. cristatus, OK? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good! I fixed the issue as you suggested. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Citations 46 and 47 should be rewritten properly.

Fixed. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's it for now. I await your replies. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Just three issues. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but two more issues that I noticed:

• In lead, you say The name Pavo cristatus is still in use now. Why the "still"? Does it contradict something? Should it not have been in use till date? You say so in "Taxonomy and naming" as well. Please clarify.
• Scrutinizing, I found these two lines still unsourced -

• In the countryside, it is particularly partial to crops and garden plants. (Feeding section)
• Peacock motifs are widely used even today such as in logo of the US NBC television network and the Sri Lankan Airlines. (In culture section)

• For improvement : You can use the IUCN site for adding more info in the "Conservation and status" section.

Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 08:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but as you have been away since a fortnight almost, despite my reminders, I had no way but to fail the article. I had much hopes with this, and would love to see it re-nominated later on. This GAN must not let you down, but please take this suggestion of mine - do not be absent when you nominate any article for GA or FA. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(Pea)Cockblocking

"It was only in the 1970s that this apparent contradiction was resolved based on the evolution of honest signalling and the handicap principle of Amotz Zahavi, though the actual mechanism may be less straightforward than it seems –"

This contradiction is "apparent" and yet it may be less straightforward than it seems? Excuse my language, but what the actual fuck does this mean and/or add to the article? T3hZ10n (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)