Talk:American black duck

Writing issues

 * I just briefly read through this article, as part of studies of wildlife in Louisiana, specifically concerning wildlife management areas, and the "Breeding section caught my attention because of some issues.

Writing

 * I am not so much pin-pointing the structure content as the presentation. I realize this is a short "Start-class" article but it (at least this section) is written like it is from the perspective of a person, or group of people, involved in a "Research Article", or research project, yet without the "person", "group of people", or "organization" being identified, and content raging from vague writing to vague scientifically presented content.
 * The first paragraph starts the section off with definitive writing that is easy to follow. The second paragraph begins to fade into a form of "research type writing", with the second sentence, "Some authorities even consider the black duck to be a subspecies..." (vague as to which authorities), then the third sentence finds it expedient to particularly name a person with an opposite view-point, "Mank et al. argue that this is in error...". The point here is that it gives the appearance of biased writing to vaguely point to an unknown source of a point of view, "some authorities", but particularly name an opposing view or opposition.
 * The third paragraph: "In the past, it has been proposed" is wide open to speculation. Content can be reworded so as not to include such vagueness. From this point the section has what I refer to as "parachute writing". "Contrary to this study's claims...", causes a more than casual reader to stop and look back for the surely missed content on which study, being of just being "dropped in". Further reading concerning this study, "...the question whether the American haplotypes are an original mallard lineage is far from resolved.", and the next sentence, "Their statement,...", does not resolve the issue. An inquisitive, reader finding themselves apparently lost, must stop reading and seek the reference to see if there are answers. With no on-line reference a reader ends up basically lost in the middle of a proverbial forest. Unless there just happens to be a copy of Conservation Genetics laying around one must conclude by supposition that the reference, Mank, Judith E.; Carlson, John E.; Brittingham, Margaret C. (2004), is this study.
 * A main problem is that the article subject, American black duck, is delineated to the subject of species degradation and possible extinction (leading to declassification) by hybridization. This begins with the "Breeding" section and continues through the conclusion of the "Status" section.
 * I think there needs to be a re-write and sections (and/or sub-sections) that are relevant to the issues of hybridization, as well as the needed expansion of the article, removing the biased leaning "hybridization study" point of view. I am am not implying that this is not important or a main concern but is one aspect (minor or major depending on the source) of the subject.


 * Take into account that "visual" as well as "micro-satellite comparisons are not the only forms of identification because there are other genetic differences that were simply not tested in the study. Otr500 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American black duck. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203045456/http://www.actazool.org/downloadpdf.asp?id=5145 to http://www.actazool.org/downloadpdf.asp?id=5145

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Image
I was considering adding this image to the article, but saw that it does already have several images and is currently a GA. So leaving it here and deferring to others. It shows both male and female and is relatively sharp, so it seems useful. YMMV. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)