Talk:Greater scaup

Help
I am trying to get this article to FA over the course of the 2011-2012 school year for AP Biology. If anyone has anything to add to it, any spelling and grammar suggestions, any citing suggestions, or anything else to contribute that will help Greater Scaup get to FA status, please help.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Help With Health Section
I used the template from the Northern Pintail to set up the organization of the page. I am having trouble with figuring out what to put under Health. Should I put predators and diseases, or adaptations (heavy body, webbed feet)?--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest having subheadings such as Predators, diseases, and conservation. You could also just make them all seperate headings. Dmanrulz180 (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about a section called "Health" at all. Predators should probably be its own section, as should conservation, and the remaining information would maybe be put in a section called diseases or something. Calling the section Health would seem to imply that either they are cared for extensively as if they were pets, or that the bird itself somehow has an impact on human health.

I think Im going to leave the heading Heath (Northern Pintail has it and it was FA) and make sub headings for Predators, Diseases, and Conservation. Good idea though.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC) I changed my mind, I ended up deleting the section "Health". I added a Conservation section and Im going to add a diseases and/or predators section(s).--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Description
The Description states that the Greater Scaup is larger than the Lesser Scaup, and that sentence has two references. I hardly think that piece of information is so controversial as to need multiple citations; one would probably be right to assume it from the birds' names. Also, the difference in size between the two is more specifically described later, making the sentence redundant; finally, the two references cited for the redundant sentence do not have names and are thus unlikely to be used again in the article, so I think that sentence should just be removed. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC) You're right. I removed it and the pointless and incorrect citation.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Latin Name Help
I found the translation for Aythya, but I cannot find the meaning of marila. If anyone knows what it is or where to find it, please help me--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

View History
Students, please view the "View History" tab and take note of the copy/edits. As stated in class, the corrections to our contributions can be humbling (28 edits); yet, a valuable learning experience. The goal is to not repeat the same mistakes in grammar and prose. For example, when to use its vs it's. This level of scrutiny is to be appreciated; however, let us not become lazy. Swallow your pride - view each edit - and continue to improve. My daughter has stated many times, that the reduction in red ink in college was in part a consequence of being bludgeoned on Wikipedia. I blame all my mistakes on a faulty keyboard!--JimmyButler (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * PS The article has taken a major leap forward when compared to what you inherited, excellent beginning.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I compared several of the grammar edits to some of the original versions and it seems like most of the mistakes are the little things that Word spell check wont fix. Also, thanks for the complement about the progress of the article, I hope to get it up for GA before Christmas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydenowensrulz (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Summer holiday resort
Where does this bird spend its summers? --Ettrig (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They spend the summer in Alaska, Siberia, northern Europe, and northern Canada. --Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. My question was utterly confused. Sorry. The intention was to ask for a more specific description of where it spends the winter period. The article currently only says that the duck goes south. This is too vague. --Ettrig (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The German article has several sources on range. Maybe you can figure out what the geographical names refer to by clicking back and forth between language versions. --Ettrig (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do. Thanks for the tip--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at the German version of the Scaup article, and I saw the info about the Greater Scaup's range and although I did not use the info provided in the German article (I wasnt able to open the link to the sources for some reason) it pointed me in the right direction for finding the wintering locations. I found a great article made by European birdguide online that had the wintering locations from all over the world (Apparently this little duck makes it's way all the way to Japan for the winter! Who knew?) in it's "Migration" section. The info from the European birdguide page made it's way to this article's "Distribution and habitat" section. Thanks again for the German article tip, it really helped.
 * PS I have a range map coming soon! Cheers--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but. The pacific coast of America is a VERY long place. Does it really spread over all that length? Suppose the range map will show. --Ettrig (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Zebra Mussel Info Placement Help
I have a great piece of info about how Zebra Mussels are poising the Greater Scaup with selenium, but I am having trouble with deciding where to put it. I originally had it in the Conservation section, but I recently created a Threats section and I am considering moving the info there. I could also have it in both sections, but have it in greater detail in one and just mention it in the other. Im stumped, where should I put it??--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Put it in and it will most probably be grinded. Under Feeding, maybe ??? --Ettrig (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats a great idea, I'll put it in great detail under feeding, but still mention it under threats. Do you think I should take it out of conservation completely or still mention that they are a problem there too?--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Range Map
Here's the range map:

I tried to make it as accurate as possible. If any dispute arises, I will gladly fix it at any time. --UND77 (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the map that UND created. But I think that the ranges shown should be more contiguous. --Ettrig (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added more detailed descriptions of the range in the European area, from books on my own bookshelves. It should be possible to find similar data for the American ranges in a public or school library. --Ettrig (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree Ettrig, the map should show the ranges as contiguous. I can start looking at school for books that show American ranges (It may take a day or two before I have time, essay test in ap biology) but I'll get on it as soon as I can. Thank you for your contributions to the distribution and habitat section.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a detailed description of the North American ranges for the Greater Scaup that includes summer and winter ranges.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the new and improved range map that UND77 made.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Very good! What R U w8ing 4? (Could we ask for one more improvement, summer and winter locations in different colours?) --Ettrig (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Humans as "Predators??"
I read in the United States Fauna article that along with skunks, coyotes, and foxes, Humans(?) are predators. This is going to sound like a dumb question, but should I include Humans in the predators section? I know the Greater Scaup is a popular gamebird and is hunted by humans does that make humans a "Predator"? (I'm going to leave humans out until I get a second opinion)--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No reason not to include humans as predators if you have a source. But I think it is redundant if a section on cultural uses exists and includes hunting or consumption. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I put humans in the list of predators, under the "Threats" section, but if I make a section about human interactions, I will go into more detail about hunting. Thank you for the tip.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What Else?
I have been expanding on this article since October 20th, and I feel that it has come a long way from the stub it was when I adopted it for WikiProject AP Biology 2011. I'm simply asking for ideas on anything else in the page that needs to be added, expanded upon, or removed, before I send it in for "Teacher Review", which is Mr. Butler's review that precedes Peer Review. If anyone has any ideas for improvements that could be made, please tell me.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At some point you have to work out the referencing. The Bibliography has been traditionally used to reference books denoted with ISBN numbers (even if the are e-books) and the Notes for web resources. It is a frustrating task; yet, you need to clean this up before proceeding to GA.--JimmyButler (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that some articles have the Bibliography and Notes section separated, with book and web references in each; however, on the Northern Pintail article, which is a previous featured article, the Reference section was not broken up into book and web references and it still made FA. I was considering merging my Notes and Bibliography sections into one References section and mixing the book and web references like the Northern Pintail page. Is it acceptable for me to merge the references? I don't think it will take away from the overall appearance of the article, however it may make finding book references slightly harder if they are combined. Is there a WikiPedia protocol on how references should be organized?--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I seperated the Bibliography and Notes sections and I considered trying to move the book references into the Bibliography section but I'm reluctant to start overhauling the References before I get a second opinion on it.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I put the two book references in the bibliography, should I remove them from the references section and their links in the body of the article, or leave them?--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with the way you're doing it now is that the book details have to be given twice, one in the cite book and again in the bibliography. I've changed the Delin, Håkan (2001) citation to show you how I usually get round that problem. Also, you need to distinguish between those books (or web sites) you've actually cited in the article and those you're recommending for further reading, so I've also added a Further reading section. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Malleus. I see what you mean about how to do book citations, and I fixed the Ullman, Magnus (1992) citation so it matches the other book citation.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

systematics if possible

 * this looks interesting but is only loading very slowly for me - it is one study showing the Greater Scaup's closest relatives and should be added. I'll have a go later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Linking vs defining
Coming along nicely. Before I review, look carefully at technical terms such as this: The drake also has a white speculum on its wings. There are a lot of anatomical descriptions, that few would recognize. If linking the technical terms turns the article into a sea of blue words, then you can consider un-linking terms that require no explanation to understand the content; such as geographical locations. Opinions vary. What I would like, is to define terms in text where possible, to enhance clarity and avoid the need to jump to a different article to comprehend. The drake also has a white speculum, a colored patch on the inner flight feathers of the wings. --JimmyButler (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I linked speculum in the article, under Description, I think that was the only anatomical term that was confusing in the article.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Circumpolar is linked to a disambiguation page. Maybe take a quick look at Manual of Style/Linking, too much text for close scrutiny, though. --Ettrig (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I didn't notice that, thanks for pointing it out. I removed the link and added a short definition for "circumpolar" in the sentence.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think circumpolar means that the range is a ring around a pole. It doesn't need to be circular, but almost continuous. This is not what your explanation says. --Ettrig (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes since, I changed the meaning in the article to " It's range circles one of Earth's poles."--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but. I think your description of what circumpolar means is good. But, in this case we are describing a particular species' range. And this species doesn't circle any of the poles. Check the range map. --Ettrig (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats true, do you think the circumpolar fact should be removed from the article, or could it still be considered circumpolar by some, simply because it's range goes into the Arctic Circle in both Canada and northern Europe and it still, in a way, "circles the poles."--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just meant that in this context your definition is too general. The GS range doesn't encircle any of the two poles of earth. It encircles the North pole. --Ettrig (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Teacher Review

 * Nearctic Greater Scaup are distinguishable from Palaearctic birds...This requires future explanation. Who are these Palearctic birds and what is their relationship to the scaup. for that matter who are these nearctic scaup that seem to popup without elaboration. You can't just link the problem away!
 *  ("probably" the same word as the scalp of the head)  this factoid befuddles me. By same word do you mean that the definitions are the same or the pronunciations? Why is probably in quotes? Can you elaborate on the significance of this statement for clarity.
 * I'm really not sure why that bit is even necessary, it was there when I adopted the article. I'm going to delete it, since it does not help explain the definition or add any relevant info to the page.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * the duck's display call; you assume the reader knows the meaning of 'display call'. Is it mating, territorial, exhibitionist behavior?
 * The Scaup is silent except for breeding, so it's display call is really a mating call. I changed it in the article.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 20 per cent or 20% Not certain of protocol here, the first seems awkward.
 * I wasn't sure of the rule either, I learned in english class that numbers less than 100 need to be spelled out, however http://thewritedirection.net/drpaper/help/05-07-apastyle.htm says that percents can be written out, like 20%, so I changed the 20 per cent to 20%--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Greater Scaup is 20 per cent heavier and 10 per cent longer than the closely related Lesser Scaup ], Sentence order, this "breaks" into the middle of your dialog on male characteristics.
 * I moved the sentence in question to before the description of the drake, so it is now right after wingspan and weight sentence.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 *  the male has a dark head with a green sheen.  and farther down The drake also has a black head with a dark green tint to it... you have two redundant sections describing male features within the same heading.
 * I removed the "The drake also has a black head with a dark green tint to it" sentence.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * T he Greater Scaup also spends the Summer across the northern part of Europe, which includes Iceland. later...In Europe, the Greater Scaup spend the summers in Iceland,  ...The trend seems to be: You are failing to blend your multiple references into a single paragraph. Instead each reference is summarized in its own section; resulting in multiple cases of redundancy. If you create note cards detailing the range from various sources, and then write the distribution section, it will not suffer from the disconnection that is occurring between repeated information. As seen here: They are found in the Aleutians year round and later In North America, the Greater Scaup summers in all of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands
 * I fixed the Alaska, Aleutians, and Iceland repeated info in the "Distribution and Habitat" section.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Greater Scaup lay an average of six to nine olive-buff colored eggs per pair, and typically nest on islands in large northern lakes . After the eggs are laid,... The addition of the underlined section breaks the flow of the discussion on egg laying. Why place that particular factoid here?
 * I moved the nesting on island fact so that the paragraph reads better. It now resides right before the six to nine egg fact.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * '' they already have down, which allows them to follow their mother on her search for food. .. is the presence of down the essential attribute that allows them to follow their parents?
 * I looked at the source for that little fact, and as it turns out, I read the sentence that contained the fact wrong. They are actually born with down AND have the ability to follow their mother on the search for food. The down doesn't have anything to do with their ability to follow their mother. I fixed the fact in the article and it now reads: "When the baby Greater Scaup are born, they already have down and are able to follow their mother on her search for food."--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Greater Scaup begin breeding when they are two years old, although they may start nesting at age one. Look closely at sentence order, Facts are often inserted without connecting a common theme. This sentence could be placed elsewhere to retain continuity of thought.
 * This problem was also fixed when the "Breeding" section was rewritten.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 *  The drakes have a complex courtship procedure, at the end of which monogamous pairs are formed  Again, why not place courtship in a section prior to egg laying; rather than as the last statement.
 * I rewrote the entire "Breeding" section, so that it flows better and in "order" starting with courtship and ending with facts about baby Scaup.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 *  which it obtains by diving and swimming underwater . Efficiency of words; I would think "diving" would not require an additional descriptor "swimming" as they are essential the same behavior.
 * That's a good point (years of English classes have made me wordy when I write) I removed the word "swimming" from the sentence so it now reads: "The Greater Scaup mainly eats mollusks, aquatic plants, and aquatic insects, which it obtains by diving underwater."--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * that other diving ducks are unable to take advantage of. I was taught that a preposition should never be placed at the end of a sentence; apparently, (as I just discovered) that is a myth.
 * Selenium... this is discussed at length in two separate sections; decide where it best fits and eliminate redundancy . Again I suspect you "mine" information from a source; move to the next and do the same; yet fail to combine information into a single cohesive paragraph that reflects your writing style. The article lacks flow as a consequence.
 * I disagree that it is discussed "at length" in two separate sections. While it is true that I mention it's impact in the "Threats" section, I go into much greater detail in the "Conservation" section. The two lines that selenium is mentioned in the "Threats" section are only there to back up the claim that Zebra Mussels are in fact a threat to the Scaup.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * After a closer look, I propose moving the entire discussion to the threats section . The selenium is a threat, I didn't see any discussion as to a conservation effort to resolve it.
 * Good idea, I moved the entire selenium discussion to threats.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 *  Hunting Greater Scaup is very challenging, as they can fly at up to 75 miles per hour, which makes shooting them in flight very difficult Why not move this sentence behind the one that states they have to be shot "on the fly".
 * I moved the "Hunting Greater Scaup is very challenging..." sentence to behind the "must be shot on the fly" sentence--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * An image of a typical decoy used for scaup hunting my break up the text in that section. Opinion of course.
 * I actually have several dozen Greater Scaup decoys, perhaps the next time I set them out (hopefully next Saturday) I can take some pictures and put them in the article. It would be good for portfolio building.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I put a picture of a decoy that I took in the article! Im pretty proud of it and it helps break up the reading a bit.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * layout boats -- link or define.--JimmyButler (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As it turns out there isnt a wikipedia article on layout boats (may be too redneck for wikipedia) and there is also no "Official" definition for layout boats, so I described what they are and supplied a link to kayak, which layout boats are very similar to. I may put a picture of one in the article, what is your opinion on it?--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Create a stub and fatten your portfolio.
 * Great idea! I'm working on it right now. Here's a link: Layout boat. --Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Layout boat stub is complete, it only has one reference and a paragraph of content, but it describes what a layout boat is and is now linked in the Greater Scaup article.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

How does this work?
The Greater Scaup is a "small diving duck", but "its large size and webbed feet allow it to reach food up to 20 feet (6 m) under water"? So it's small but at the same time large? Have you informed the relevant authorities about this dimensional anomaly? The very fabric of space and time may be under threat here. Malleus Fatuorum 05:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When I say it's a "small diving duck" I mean that compared to other diving ducks, like the canvasback duck, it is small, but compared to the Lesser Scaup it is large. I should have been more clear.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Leading Questions
What should I put in the lead for the article? I know the lead is supposed to summarize the contents of the article, but what is an appropriate length for it? Should it summarize the entire article or just some parts of it?--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and redid the lead section. I got the first 2 sentences from each section and put them together in a paragraph. Is that the right way to do a lead?--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's good to systematically check all the sections. The lead is to summarize the most important parts of the main article. These are not necessarily always in the first two sentences. --Ettrig (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, I read through the entire article and made notes of important information on a piece of paper, I then summarized the notes and turned that into the new lead. I think it's better than the old one, what's your opinion on it?--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
I put Greater Scaup up for peer review! After it gets reviewed, its going up for GA! My goal is to have it to GA by Christmas.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a definite lack of wikilinks in the lead. --Ettrig (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I added some wikilinks in the lead section. Do you think it needs more?--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made some comment in the peer review. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First things first, thank you for contributing to the peer review. In regards to your concern about the capitalization of "Scaup", I believe that "Scaup" should be capitalized, because it is capitalized in the title of the article and it is capitalized in the Lesser Scaup article. I changed all the lowercase "scaup"s to uppercase "Scaup"s.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to your comment on about the usage of Drake/Hen vs. Male and Female, they do in fact mean the same thing, I just thought I'd put "Drake" and "Hen" in there to help break up the constant usage of "Male" and "Female."--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I also just cited the range map on the commons page.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it needs close-up photographs of the male and female non-American subspecies. Snowman (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Common Pochard which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greater scaup. 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/20120425081000/http://www.audubonbirds.org/species/Birds/Greater-Scaup.html to http://www.audubonbirds.org/species/Birds/Greater-Scaup.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425122322/http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/viewFile/801/827 to http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/viewFile/801/827

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) 06:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)