# Talk:American black duck

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)

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.
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) 21:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:American black duck/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 05:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I will start this review in a minute. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for picking it up for a review!  Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


### Description
"The head is a slightly lighter brown than the dark brown body" - nothing wrong with this sentence prese, but seems that it could be written better. Again, not really a point, just a suggestion grammar wise. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Nice suggestion! Does it look better now? Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks better to me now. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
"The cheeks and throat are streaked brown and there is a dark streak..." - how about "The cheeks and throat are streaked brown, with a dark streak..."? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Definitely better! Rephrased. Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
"The fleshy orange feet have dark webs." - seems like it could be put better, perhaps "The fleshy orange feet of the duck have dark webbing" or something along those lines? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Rephrased. Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


### Feeding
"...80% plant food and 20% animal food, which increases to 85% during winter." - what/which one increases to 85% in the winter? Seems a bit ambiguous. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah! Awesome catch. Surely, one might have thought 85% for the plant diet, but it is otherwise. Rephrased. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


### Breeding
"Nest sites are well-concealed on the ground, often on uplands." - shouldn't that be "in uplands"? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Woops, fixed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
"...cream white..." - could that just read "cream"? Also, isn't that encompassed/already covered by saying the eggs come in "varied shades of white"? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep, removed "creamy white" instead! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Will continue review asap --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

So far the article looks good. I have gone ahead and made some minor copyedits and, as always, feel free to revert them if you disagree. I am going to place this review  On hold pending the alterations above and anything else I happen to notice in the meantime (in which case will add above). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor Your edits seem awesome! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Adityavagarwal: I'm glad that you liked the edits. I have struck out my above points but will give the article a once over in the morning and then most likely pass it as it is getting late and fresh eyes would be a better thing so to speak. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor Please take your time! I hope you have a wonderful evening! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Adityavagarwal Thank you very much. I have added a few more things and after they have been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this review. I have also looked at the images and they are all fine. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor Hopefully, the issues have been fixed now. I hope you enjoyed reading the article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Adityavagarwal: Looks good. GA has passed. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor Thank you very much for your review! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)