Talk:Mallard/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay I will take a look. I will make straightforward changes as I go and jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Add what Anas boschas was/is.
 * ✅ From Aves in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae, mallard being a redirect to Anas boschas, and few other online sources like this, it seems like Anas boschas is a synonym of the mallard. So, I mentioned it. here Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * err not quite, Synonym (taxonomy) means they are not current and needn't be mentioned in the lead. See how I have done it at turquoise parrot or banded stilt. Just mentioned. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I amended the issue now. Could you have a look at it? here Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the External links policy and judge whether any of the current EL are useful or should all be canned (or used as inline references)
 * ✅ I removed the all but two links, as they contained information already present in the article or they were talking about specific areas where mallards were present (which was not required, and also contained contentious information like the different clutch size, and the like, which could mislead the readers). However, two of them, which I did not remove, had rich media files. here Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * All web citations should have an accessdate, date (and better to have webarchive to preserve link when link dies), and author if possible. Also need to review and see which are possibly non-reliable. Generally better to replace with journals or reference books.
 * For the ones which do not have an accessdate, should I put them for the current day? There are only a few web citations (non-journals, non-papers) without accessdate, which I can review again and put the current day as accessdate. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
 * ✅ All the web citations and news (total 15) now have an accessdate, date, webarchive, and authors (not for all, as not every web citation mentioned the author) are present. I replaced other web citations with books/journals, for reliability; the web citations are now mostly iucn, nytimes, zoos, and the like. Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is this paper only in bibliography? Surely it should be used and referenced in the article itself.
 * ✅ It was a bit difficult to include it in the article, as it spoke a lot (and only) about haplotypes of mallards (and such) birds. However, I managed to include it by modifying a sentence. here


 * Regarding jboyd's website, it is a great resource for checking on latest consensus of classification and its reference section has a list of papers used. It should not be used as a reference itself but as a pointer to the others.


 * You need to read and incorporate the Lavretzky paper of 2014.
 * ✅ Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Are we sure there are not any morphological differences between new world and old world mallards?
 * ✅ According to Lavretsky paper, there are few differences, due to which certian birds are more close to the OW mallard, and certian others to the NW mallard. I included that in the article, and cited the Lavretsky paper too. here Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The clutch is 8–13 eggs, which are incubated for 27–28 days to hatching with 50–60 days to fledgling - you mean "fledging" here, right? Also needs a link.
 * ✅ Wow. That was a subtle difference that you found out; really cool. Yup. I ameliorated the issue. Apparently, the citation had the word "fledgling" too. However, I removed that citation and put a new one instead. So, the complete sentence is cited again properly. Also, linked it.here Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * When they pair off with mating partners, often one or several drakes end up left out. - err, the ones that pair off are not the ones that are left out. Needs rewording.
 * ✅ Yup. Reworded the sentence and merged it with another sentence. here Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * link clutch, incubation
 * You mean for this line? The clutch is 8–13 eggs, which are incubated for 27–28 days to hatching with 50–60 days to fledging. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Have a read of Manual of Style/Linking - generally link at first instance in body of text. and also in lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yup. I linked the two words. I thought you meant to refer to them with a citation (which was already done, so I knew you meant something else which I did not understand). I thought they were known as wikilinks (wikipedia links?). :P here Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Although these examples are not predators,... - unneeded. can be removed. You have said "threats" in the title anyway.
 * ✅ I merged the two paragraphs and removed the mention of them not being predators. here Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * having subsections in the Regions considered invasive section makes it look too choppy.
 * ✅ Now, they are in paragraphs, instead of being in separate subsections.Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Avoid galleries. You don't need multiple pictures of eggs or adult males for instance. Commons is for galleries (with a link at the bottom). Just choose images that highlight a particular aspect of the bird and place them through the text.
 * To chime in on this, see WP:Galleries. FunkMonk (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank You very much. :) (Also, seems like you used the indent that I made :P). The link was really useful. I actually thought of leaving this amended for the last; however, after reading the link, it seemed really easy to amend this issue. However, I am not able to position the image properly. Everything seems fine, except for the four images which have shifted downwards. Plate 221 of the Birds of America by John James Audubon., Calls, Iridescent speculum feathers of the male, and Owing to their highly 'malleable' genetic code, mallards can display a large amount of variation,[23] as seen here with this female, who displays faded or 'apricot' plumage. I tried a lot of combinations; however, this was the best what I could get to. They are not moving upwards. Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd probably prune even more images to solve the clutter issue, some of them seem repetitive. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That's what jumps out at me as necessary at first. Will check with other bird editors about content. Am trying to give this a big a push as possible towards FA-hood. It is a big complex subject, so keen to get it right. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you very much for all your mentions and your quick response. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I addressed to all the issues pointed out by you. Could you have a look at it? Thank You. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay. I need some time to digest it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Not thrilled about File:Mallard_Duck_Range.png as it does not distinguish between native and introduced ranges. Also needs more info on where data is from. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the only other image at commons that I found, which had the global range of mallard, which might be from here. Other images that I found are here and here, between which the former has no specification of the colour distinction, and the latter has no separate ranges although seems reliable. So, should I remove the image, or change it with any of other? Though, if we compare the image in the article with these, they do seem to have similar ranges, for example, the northern canadian end ranges, etc. in the images seem similar. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, remove for moment and we'll find a better sourced one I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yup. Removed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with humans



 * The mallard has indeed had a long and important relationship with humans, concerning use for food, in hunting, as pets, and in children's stories, not to mention in art and illustrations. As such the current section is not adequate. Here are some suggestions: Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * --- Well, the section is vastly improved now, nice work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All thanks to your input. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * How about a subsection on food (See also link is not adequate), to mention smoked duck, canard a l'orange, peking (roast) duck with Chinese pancakes.


 * A subsection on children's stories could mention and use an illustration (all PD) from The Tale of Jemima Puddle-duck along with what's already in the article, and there are certainly others.
 * The Tale of Jemima Puddle-duck seems like on ducks but not mallards specifically. So, would it be right to include it in the subsection? Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In music, Peter and the Wolf, "the duck quacked angrily from the middle of the pond". On the oboe.
 * I searched a lot on this, but could not find if the duck used was actually mallard. Everywhere, it is mentioned duck. So, should I put it in the article? As it is an article on mallard, so would it be ok to still add it? Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Jemima Puddle-duck and Peter and the Wolf's duck are both certainly domestic ducks (and not Muscovy, despite the name they weren't known in Russia). Feel free to use both of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 4 ships of the Royal Navy were named HMS Mallard.


 * Better mention duck hunting.


 * In art, where do we begin. Ancient Egypt, where domestic ducks were abundant? Bosch? In Japan and China, they were part of the Bird-and-flower painting tradition. In European (especially Dutch) still life painting, ducks are a common theme.


 * It is important to relate cultural items to mallards specifically, but for many that should be possible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I just realised we don't have a section on Domestic duck and how the mallard relates to it. It needs to be a summary as obviously we have a big article on Domestic duck. It could either go as a subsection (Domestication) of Taxonomy or the humans bit. Either would be okay. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

and I have addressed the issues mentioned. (Did not write about The Tale of Jemima Puddle-duck due to it being a duck, as I mentioned earlier, and the music too) Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are multiple overlapping articles. Still, the section as it now stands is clearly more appropriate. I'll step back now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, any other corrections required? Also, thanks a bunch for the ce and other corrections. Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See Jemima and Peter above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me. Let's hope the reviewer likes it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In the Domestication section, you mention peking duck (and I presume needs capital 'P') without explaining what it is.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref 116 shouldn't be in all capital letters.


 * almost all varieties of domestic ducks except the muscovy duck, were derived from the mallard, and have been domesticated. - the last segment is unneeded as by stating "domestic" in the beginning you're covering that already..


 * Maybe a few words on how domesticated ducks look different and why from mallards.
 * ✅ Got them. Also, fixed the citation needed tag, by citing the sentence. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On one more reading, I found little ce's (one extraneous enter symbol in edit mode, strory->story, and one italicizing removal of hms mallard). Is there anything else that could be done to amend the article? Thanks. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

NB: earwigs has what I suspect is a false positive from a Wikipedia mirror

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - I think we're there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)