Jump to content

Talk:Greater scaup/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 06:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Hi, I'll make comments soon, then I'm going to me away for a few days, so that will give you time to respond in my temporary absence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a bit of a copy edit first, I'll get you to check when I've finished Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made these changes, please check Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Hayden, now some comments.

  • You are writing the article in AE, but using the BE spelling of "grey"
done--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should link to a article at its first occurrence in the text and not again. Please check (I may have added some in my edit above, since I linked some words not realising that they were already linked further on). Countries and continents shouldn't be linked
done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydenowensrulz (talk • contribs) 18:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard "Bluebill" over here. Could you please reference it and make it clear it's US or NAm usage.
done --Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, why doesn't it migrate down the coast of Canada? Perhaps North America rather than US
done-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done (oops)-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about "hens". Usually the sexes of ducks, at least in BE, are called "drake" and "duck". Perhaps "female" would be better
done, I changed "hens" to "females"--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bottoms — "underside" or "underparts" would be a bit more formal, if that's what you mean
done, I changed "bottom" to "underside"-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • vermiculation — you need the word, but it's red linked and unexplained. You could write a stub to link to, find or write a Wikitionary definition, or add a brief explanation.
done, I added a brief definition-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sentence about juvenile and eclipse plumage?
done--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • rare circumpolar ducks is a bit ambiguous, suggests that the scaup might be rare. Not sure that it's appropriate anyway — Northern Pintail, Northern Shoveler, Mallard at least are circumpolar.
done-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydenowensrulz (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11% of the continental Scaup population — which continent? Your conservation section seems to be concerned only with the US, and I'm not sure why you give a US count for the total of both scaups rather than a global figure for Greater. That source also gives a bit more on threats
done, I added more to the "Threats" section as well as adding the worldwide population count.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • blinds needs a link, it's a different word here.
done-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 75 miles per hour needs metric conversion
done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydenowensrulz (talk • contribs) 18:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should mention the Least Concern conservation status in the conservation section.
done-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • References.
  • ref 1 Why is Alvarez capitalised and without his first name. I would lose the month from ref too, unless you are going to add it for all the others too
done--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 5 needs an ISBN
done--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 9 needs italics for the scientific name
done--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs 12,13. Why is the year not in parentheses for these two?
done-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is about.com a WP:RS?
Normally it about.com is not a reliable source, but I searched the author, Melissa Mayntz, and she seems to be a very credible author, as she has been writing educational articles since 2003 and writing articles for WildBird Magazine since 2003.-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs 15, 21. Can you write out DNR and MN in full, I don't know what they mean?
done--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 18. you don't need a retrieval date for publication that exist in RL as well as on the web.
done--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 23 needs a publisher
done--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref24 shouldn't be capitalised
done-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is a bit of overlinking, ref 25 is repeated three times in two sentences.
done-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • images are OK, although the map will need recolouring to differentiate the breeding/wintering ranges if you plan to take this to FA eventually.

This should keep you going for a while. I'll have another read through when I return. Have a look at the FA Northern Pintail to see if it gives you any ideas. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At some stage before FAC, you will need to make sure that you have conformed to WP:Lead section and the relevant bits of WP:MoS. You will probably need access to material that is not on-line. You could email me for what I've got, and put a message on the Bird project page to see what NAm editors can doJimfbleak - talk to me? 17:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made some more tweaks, please check. As far as I can see, the taxonomy referencing is the only outstanding issue, let me know if you struggle to find a source. You should look at the plumage and feather articles to see if there are links for mantle and scapular. If not, the latter will need a bit of explanation. As I said above, I'll be away for a few days after today. While I'm away, have a careful read through to check how the text flows and to avoid the repetition of words and phrases. If you can get someone else to have a look (ask at the project page?), that would be good too, since it's easy to overlook things even after many reads — I have an article at WP:FAC at the moment where it was pointed out that "NaturaL" was not quite standard spelling! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link for scapular and I added an ISBN for the dictionary reference. The only thing that I'm confused about is when you said that most of the taxonomy section came from OED. The only part that OED sourced was the origin of the word "Scaup". As for the other uncited info in the taxonomy section that proceeds the fact about the origin of "scaup" is concerned, I did not put that stuff there, it was there when I adopted the article for my project. I cannot seem to find a source for it, will you please help me cite it?-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going away for few days in the next hour or so, I'll leave a message on the bird project talk page to see if anyone can source it. If not, I'll sort it out when I get back. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very promising article. I did a Google Scholar search for Aythya marila and a noticed a number of references that could be reviewed and included. Some examples below: Shyamal (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • De Leeuw J.J. (1999). "Food intake rates and habitat segregation of Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula and Scaup Aythya marila exploiting Zebra Mussels Dreissena polymorpha" (PDF). Ardea. 87: 15–31.
    • Piotr Szefer, Jerzy Falandysz (1987). "Trace metals in the soft tissues of scaup ducks (Aythya marila L.) wintering in Gdańsk bay, Baltic sea". Science of The Total Environment. 65: 203–213. doi:10.1016/0048-9697(87)90173-2.
    • Fournier MA & J E Hines (2001). "Breeding Ecology of Sympatric Greater and Lesser Scaup (Aythya marila and Aythya affinis) in the Subarctic Northwest Territories". Arctic. 54 (4): 444–456.
    • Oates, David W. and Principato, Joann (1994). "Genetic variation and differentiation of North American waterfowl (Anatidae)". Transactions ofthe Nebraska Academy ofSciences. 21: 127–145.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    • Patton J C & J. C. Avise (1986). "Evolutionary genetics of birds IV. Rates of protein divergence in waterfowl (Anatidae)" (PDF). Genetica. 68: 129–143.
I added a bit about metals in Scaup tissue samples to threats, thanks for all the sources that you found. I'm working on citing the taxonomy section right now.-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just cited the uncited info in the Taxonomy section-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do some decoys have the appearance of a female Greater Scaup? Snowman (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do. I have some hen decoys, should I change the picture to one which features a drake and a hen, or just mention that there are hen decoys in the human interaction section?-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the picture of the decoy to one that includes a female as well as a male.-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is much better to show both a male and female decoy in a photograph for this article. If you took these photographs yourself, it should be possible to get photographs that include the whole decoy including the tails of the both decoys. Also, include the whole shadow of the decoys for completeness. Also, the entire lengths of the strings could be shown. I wonder what the best background would be to show these decoys in a photograph. Is it a lead weight? Please note, do not put different images on top of each other. Please upload a better photograph to a different file name. When this has been done, we will see what we can do so sort out the image dump mess. Can you use a better camera, so that more details of the decoys can be seen? Are the decoys on a base? It might be possible to illuminate the decoys better for photography. Snowman (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to borrow a friend's camera tomorrow (her's is better than an iphone), and take a few pictures of the decoys. I can include the shadows of the decoys and the tails this time. I currently have about 3 meters of line on the decoys, which is a lot, I was thinking about trying to coil the line and have the weights at the end. Do you have any suggestions for a better background, because I think the reed rug they are on looks good.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By all means upload another photograph with the decoys on the mats, but to me it looks a bit "home made". Also, upload a photograph on a plain white or a pale background. It might be useful for Commons to have photographs of the male and female ducks separately and also the two ducks together. It might be better if the ducks faced the same direction, because that will make comparing them easier. Yes, include the whole string, the weights, and the shadows. For a task like this, I would generally take several slightly different photographs in slightly different lighting and pick the best. Please include the approximate dimensions of the ducks in the image description. You could upload them to en Wiki again at the present time, and I will move them to Commons, or you could upload them to Commons yourself having logged in and got an account there. Commons is the best place to upload photographs, since photographs there can be used on all the language Wikis. Snowman (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A trace is a small amount and the paragraph on metals starts of by saying that iron is present in trace quantities, but ends in saying that iron is in high levels in the lungs and liver in some cases. Both parts of the paragraph can not be correct. I would be interested in learning about the consequences of these levels. Heavy metals feature in the "Conservation" section and the "Threats" section and I think it would be better if these were joined together. Snowman (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the last part of the "iron in high levels..." so it doesn't say "in high levels" when talking about traces of these metals. I also went ahead and moved the last part of the "Conservation" section to the "Threats" section, it makes more sense for common threats to the Greater Scaup to be in the "Threats" section. -Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Iron would naturally be in higher concentration in the liver, than other tissues. What is the interpenetration of these iron levels? Snowman (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are these ducks only shot when they are flying? When the decoys fool birds to think it is safe to land, are the birds shot on the ground or when swimming on water? Is there any illegal hunting? Is there a duck shooting season? Is duck shooting a controversial activity? Snowman (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki article says selenium is a non-metal, but the duck article says it is a semi-metal. Snowman (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trace element has several meanings and I think that it should be clear what is meant by trace element in the article. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read the paper about the study of several metal elements in 107 ducks. The article appears to contain some levels from the results of the study. What conclusions, if any, are drawn from these results? Snowman (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  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:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_scaup/GA1&oldid=1079286427"