Jump to content

Talk:Brolga

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleBrolga is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleBrolga has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 20, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 4, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
February 24, 2005Featured article reviewDemoted
March 12, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

older entries

[edit]

ŽI am sorry but what is brolga? I mean is she (or he?) a real human, fictional character, even a some kind of species? -- Taku 18:31 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Both, of course. Why else would there be a taxobox? The Brolga is very beautiful and quite common bird in the crane family, and the focus of a a beautiful part of the dreamtime. Now I imagine that you will feel tempted to leap up on your high-horse and say that we ought to strictly seperate biology and mythology into seperate entries. That, however, would be to miss the point entirely: the Aboriginal people have been living with the land and the creatures that belong to it for over 50 thousand years—since long before the ice cap retreated from Europe and my ancestors walked up there to find a cave or two to occupy—and to them, the reality of the dreamtime and the connection of modern-day fauna to it is absolute. Tannin

PS: that's why the entry starts off with the words "in the dreamtime", because if you understand the dreamtime, then all is clear, and if you don't understand the dreamtime, then you have no hope of understanding anything anout Australia. It's a very simple concept, but quite fundamental. -- T

Okay now I understand what makes me confused. I agree that we have one article for both biological and mythological meaning. But shouldn't it a good idea to explain what is Brolga briefly in the introduction. Actually I will. See and give me comments. -- Taku 01:39 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
Taku, brolga is the same sort of thing as badger, the clever animal that also carries a sake bottle and an account book to record his drinks. Ancheta Wis 02:24, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The intro still doesn't blend into the rest as neatly as I would like (OK, we are supposed to be a soulless and boring encyclopeda, but it is too beautiful a story to butcher too much) however, I am reluctantly drawn to conclude that you are right, Taku. (An Australian would not need the into para, but that's the point, isn't it: we are not all Australians here.) I've trimmed it back and think it reads better now. See what you think. Tannin

I've put the myth story in a sub-category at the bottom of the article. Most people visiting the page are more likley to be bird-watchers than anthropologists, and I don't think every Yank will quite get dreamtime without following the wikilink.--ZZ 07:41, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Ovid's Metamorphoses contains many similar stories about the origins of birds, animals and plants. Perhaps they could be added to the relevant articles too. -- Derek Ross

That would be nice, Derek. The key, I think, is to do it very sparingly. Only when it really adds something of value, and is quite specific to the particular creature. Tannin

Nice tale. But shouldn't Brolga the mythical girl be at Brolga (myth)? (See Jupiter) --Menchi 23:00 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The part where it says they use swan nests had a link to the black swan. If that is the only kind of swan we are talking about, we should say "black swan" instead of just swan. Cos111 23:35 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Swans in Australia are black. AFAIK swans in Australia are not naturally white. So saying swan here means black swan because that's the only kind of swan we have here.

Primarily resolvedCurrently failing to meet featured article criteria

[edit]

Hi, this article would not longer make it if nominated as a featured article candidate. Out of the Featured article criteria, it does not have a Lead section and it has no references. Can someone familiar with this topic please remedy some of those concerns? I really prefer not to nominate an article to be removed as a featured article, but I also feel all featured articles should meet the same standards. Thanks - Taxman 22:52, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I noticed this and am trying to find some way of rectifying it, but don't know if I have time--ZayZayEM 01:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, see what you can do. Some is better than none. - Taxman 02:44, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Nice work, thank you. I just noticed the lead section and the references. Even though you said you didn't add much material with the references, if they confirmed the material that was already here, then they make great references. If you could find a couple more, all the better. Especially something on the aboriginal legend part. - Taxman 15:51, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
[edit]

What do they eat? Do they have natural predators? What's the estimated population size, and is it increasing/decreasing? Do they migrate? How fast do they run/fly? --Confuzion 15:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have requested that this article be removed of it's featured article status. Please vote here. --Oldak Quill 19:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have addressed a number of these after a very simple Google search. Rmhermen 03:32, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

what evil spirit?

[edit]

"Brolga had escaped from the evil spirit" what spirit would this be? four-headed brolga http://purpletentacle.co.uk/images/brolga.jpg

Read the whole section. An evil willy-willy (small whirlwind) spirit stole Brolga from her peoples.--ZayZayEM 02:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indigenous Australian mythology

[edit]

I've removed the following from the article. Not all Aboriginal tribes believe the same things and tell the same stories. It can be added back if someone can specify which tribe(s) this particular tale comes from. --Ptcamn 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Aboriginal Dreamtime,A story from the Mutti Mutti people of Lake Mungo and the Darling Basin . Brolga was a young woman of extraordinary beauty, and a wonderful dancer. She learned the old dances—parading like an emu and whirling like the wind—and invented new ones to tell the stories of the spirits and the animals. People of far-away tribes came just to see her dancing, and the more she danced the more famous she became. Sometimes the old people would worry that, because she was so pretty and so famous, she might grow vain; but she never did. She remained the same happy, modest Brolga she had always been.

One day, Brolga went alone out onto the plain to dance, just for the joy of it, when an evil spirit spied her. The evil spirit felt he must possess her. He came in the form of a willywilly and spun her away. Her people became worried and searched for her, but the wind had blown away her footprints. They searched for many days before they found the willywilly on a distant plain, and Brolga there beside him. They all ran to rescue her, waving their spears and boomerangs, but the evil spirit spun the whirlwind faster and faster. If he could not have Brolga, he said, no-one would have her. He swirled around her and just as the tribe came close, she vanished into the sky.

Soon after all these events, a bird appeared, one that they had never seen before; a beautiful tall, grey bird. Slowly, it stretched its wings and began to dance, making long hopping steps and floating on the air with the same grace and poetry of motion that Brolga had been famous for. Soon the people realised that Brolga had escaped from the evil spirit and been turned into a bird so that she could fly back to Earth and dance for them again.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 01:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Stately" seems a bit too subjective a term.
  • Since combination synonyms are mentioned under taxonomy, could be placed in the infobox.
  • "The renowned ornithologist John Gould had given the species the name Grus australasianus" why did he coin a new name?
  • "the iris is yellow or orange" and " The legs and feet are dark grey or black." Is this individual variation, or related to something else?
  • You are not consistent in how you refer to the species in plural. Brolga or Brolgas?
  • There are better pictures that could be used on Commons and Flickr. For example, these two of the head[1][2] are superior to the one in the article.
  • The gallery should be removed, it serves no purpose.
  • Images of the bird in flight or at least with spread wings could be shown.
  • Seems to be an image of a nest, which might be useful:[3]
  • Gould's drawing would make more sense under taxonomy.
  • Diet and reproduction are usually subsections under behaviour, not full sections.
  • The culture section is a short list of trivia, couldn't it be incorporated in the article? The info about the painting seems superfluous. We rarely list every painting an animal is shown in, unless the painting itself is very famous.
  • There is some inconsistency in species name capitalisation.
  • Too much "ing" in the following sentence, should be rephrased: "The performance begins with a bird picking up some grass and tossing it into the air, catching it in its bill, then progresses to jumping a metre into the air with outstretched wings, then stretching, bowing, walking, calling, and bobbing its head."
  • "In good habitat" should be suitable, or some such.
  • "and are often found in the same area as those of the closely related but slightly larger Sarus Crane" differences are already described elsewhere, is there a reason to do so again?
  • "nonfamilial": unrelated instead?
Nice, seems all text related issues are fixed. Do you want help with the images? Removing the gallery was a good thing, because it really didn't contribute with anything. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image[4] seems interesting, I'm not sure what they're doing, are they foraging or collecting nest material? And may this one be displaying?[5] FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a particularly nice image but I'm unsure precisely what they are doing so a caption would be difficult. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True. I imagine they wouldn't be eating such material?[6] FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article is ready, but the last things; there is no indication of why Gould chose a new name? Maybe that could be added later if you find out why. It seems the bird has quite a lot of junior synonyms that are missing from the taxobox, and if the subspecies are considered invalid, they are synonyms too.[7] FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you have added some synonyms. Thank you. The link (7) you give does not work for me. This and this give synonyms but do not mention subspecies.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with regard to Gould but I have changed the wording a bit. In Europe we have the French partridge, the European jackdaw, the Spanish ibex - they are not called by these names by the locals, only by people with a wider perspective who realise their are other partridges, jackdaws and ibexes in different parts of the world. So with the cranes. Gould realised there were others and called these ones Australian cranes. No big deal! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not talking about the common name, but the Linnean binomial he proposed, Grus australasianus. Did he not know it was already named, or was it a specific population he thought was distinct? As for subspecies, I'm referring to the ones already mentioned in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know. The taxonomy section was there before I started working on the article and I rather left it thankfully alone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh, I see. In any case, it should be good enough for GA, so I'll pass it. But you could try to figure it out before a potential FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brolga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grus rubicunda or Antigone rubicunda?

[edit]

The article states Antigone rubicunda as the scientific name but the commons category is at Grus rubicunda and Category:Antigone rubicunda there redirects to Category:Grus rubicunda with the statement "For IOC classification 7.2, Antigone rubicunda is a synonym of Grus rubicunda". This is a little confusing for the lay people like myself. What is the correct scientific name of the Brolga? Calistemon (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brolga&oldid=1198055386"