# Talk:Greater scaup

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)

Today in class, Mr. Butler gave us a template that he wants us to use for web citations and another one for book citations. I think I am going to change the citation format tomorrow. --Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

you could use the website if you want to talk about how it hard to get a population count in the U.S. as they are not distinguished from lesser scaup. http://www.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt/community/greater_scaup/1664
Dmanrulz180 (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Dmanrulz, but I have something similar to that in the Status section of the article.--Haydenowensrulz
The source still has a lot of information. It might be worth ckecking out.Dmanrulz180 (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Why do you have a Bibliography section with sources in it that aren't books? Don't those go under Notes? And is there supposed to be a difference between Notes and Footnotes? Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary have an ISBN? Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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) 

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)

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)

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)

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.[1] --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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

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)
The 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)

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)

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)

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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Greater Scaup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)
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)

I've made these changes, please check Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 09:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Circumpolar is a dab
done--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
Most of the taxonomy seems to be sourced to the OED, which can't be right. If this was added by someone else and you can't source it, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 11:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Check your link for clutch (: clutch might be better
done (oops)-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
A sentence about juvenile and eclipse plumage?
done--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
link down to down (feather)
done  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydenowensrulz (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
blinds needs a link, it's a different word here.
done-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
75 miles per hour needs metric conversion
done  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydenowensrulz (talk • contribs) 18:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you should mention the Least Concern conservation status in the conservation section.
done-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
ref 5 needs an ISBN
done--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
ref 9 needs italics for the scientific name
done--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
refs 12,13. Why is the year not in parentheses for these two?
done-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
ref 23 needs a publisher
done--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
ref24 shouldn't be capitalised
done-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
there is a bit of overlinking, ref 25 is repeated three times in two sentences.
done-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
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)

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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
I just cited the uncited info in the Taxonomy section-Haydenowensrulz (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that the article needs a lot of work to get it to GA standard. Snowman (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Do some decoys have the appearance of a female Greater Scaup? Snowman (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Edits since your last, I think we are about there, but it will need more work for FA.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 
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): 
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

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)

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.
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) 06:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Replacement images should be superior in quality, viewing angle, field marks, etc.  There is no requirement that infobox images be of the nominate species. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Needsmoreritalin What's your objection to having photos of the nominate subspecies on the page? When I've been editing this page, I try to keep a global perspective, including both subspecies; you, it appears, are not interested in that. On a previous edit you eliminated every single photo of the nominate subspecies from the entire page. Why? What next? Are you going to delete every textual reference to it too? Is it out of American exceptionalism, that you think only subspecies nearctica matters? Or is it just clumsy editing to show your personal dislike for my photos and to promote your own, without stopping to think about what else you are deleting? That you removed @Charlesjsharp's photo too just now, suggests the former. MPF (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
@Needsmoreritalin As an aside, worth pointing out that the genetic monophyly of Aythya marila has never yet been tested. The possibility remains, that nearctica could prove more closely related to affinis than it is to marila. This is just one reason why it is important to have the nominate subspecies included in the page, and the taxobox - MPF (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
First of all, an apology.  I saw that you changed the images and I reverted the edit because of that.  It was not my intention to revert copy edits, nor to remove additional photos.  Charlesjsharp is a talented photographer who has provided a staggering amount of high quality wildlife images to Wikipedia.
Why are you on a rampage to replace high quality images with images that are significantly lower quality merely because they are of the nominate species?  If you can find images that display the nominate species and are of a higher quality, I would not object.
I will return the images in the status quo antebellum and if you feel strongly about the nominate species, I would appreciate if you opened up a dispute resolution and let someone else make that decision for us. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
@Needsmoreritalin - thanks; apologies for the delay in replying, been taking a while to think about it. I've taken a look at the image guidelines, and they're very skimpy, not saying much to support either of our cases (neither about nominate subspecies, nor about VI / QI / FP being a preferred standard): I reckon the whole section should be updated (e.g. the 'preferably facing into the text' is IIRC out of date and can be done with markup if the original doesn't, though I'm not sure how; that should be added!). I'd agree good quality is important, but how much so beyond what can be seen in the box thumbnail (rather than the full size), I'm less convinced; and equally, I do still consider that having the nominate subspecies (as by definition the most typical of the species) is important. Something for a fuller discussion on the project talk perhaps. Back to the pics for this page: for a resolution, I'd suggest perhaps User:Big iron who started the article if he's still around (except no edits for 4½ months so might be retired), or alternatively User:Jimfbleak (2nd editor, and still active) to decide? - MPF (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
@Needsmoreritalin and MPF: thanks for ping. I don't know that there are any helpful guidelines on this, although I'm sure we don't want the article to descend into an "anything goes" random gallery. I'm unlikely to lose sleep over this, but my inclination is to keep content rather than remove it. I can't see that having an image of a different subspecies or other distinctive form hurts, and there is plenty of choice here for this widespread form Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Its all good. And I think while we may have differences of opinion, we are trying to improve the quality of the articles.  When I do a search for a species using google, a number of images appear at the top of the search.  Wikipedia's images are often in that mix, and the image is from the infobox.  If Wikipedia isn't in the first group of photos,  but the article is high in the search results, a thumbnail from the infobox appears with the link.
So to draw people to the article, I think its important the the infobox image is one that says "click me" to the user. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Thought I might weigh in here as a third party. I agree in part with both of you. 
Quality: I think what @Needsmoreritalin means by "quality" is resolution which is not the same thing. Resolution is certainly one aspect of quality, but beyond a certain point it is not an improvement for our purposes and can actually be a detriment. As long as the image is high enough resolution so that it does not appear pixelated and we can make out detail, I don't see why more pixels adds anything of value. I say this as someone who helped build the world's highest pixel resolution camera for a purpose where it does make a difference. We are making thumbnails here not billboards. In the case where someone actually does want to click on the photo to see the higher resolution image, it should be large enough to fill the screen of a higher resolution computer. Any more is waste and just makes the image harder to load for people on slower machines. This is the case for many of @Needsmoreritalin's images. It is why I actually downsize most of my images before posting.
Nominate Subspecies: I think that saying "we should have images of the nominate subspecies" is missing the bigger point. We should not have images of a subspecies that only relatively few people see and looks significantly different. For example, subspecies nycticorax nycticorax obscurus would be a bad choice, not because it is not the nominate subspecies, but because it looks very different and is endemic to a relatively small part of the globe. Seeing that image as the infobox would only serve to confuse the majority of people looking to get information about the bird they would see. Obviously there should be pictures of all subspecies in the article when possible. Using phrasing like "infobox image should be of nominate subspecies" largely just reinforces images of the subspecies English speaking people saw first which might not be indicative of widespread species. As long as the infobox image is of one of the widespread subspecies, as is the case here, I don't see the issue and don't think it is grounds to replace images, especially with worse images.
Facing the text: Honestly I do thing it's nice to have the image face the text, but it's just not that big a deal and we shouldn't replace images for this reason.
All that being said, I think  @Needsmoreritalin's photos here are clearly better thumbnail and encyclopedia images in this case. I have great respect for both of you and the incredible images and work you've both added to Wikipedia. Thank you.

Polinova (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback.  Unfortunately the written word doesn't effectively convey tone.  I am proud to be a part of the Wikipedia community and I want to make sure that I treat other contributors with respect.  Sometimes I may be too brief and I think that could be interpreted as being short with someone.
When I refer to Quality Image I mean   Commons Quality Images.
I have nominated these for review to be considered Featured Pictures too.
I use this approach so that other people chime in on the merit and the technical quality of the images and avoid replacing other QIs or FPs because they have achieved a status that demonstrates they are of a high standard. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the Quality image guidelines. I do not think that is a good argument to keep a photo as an infobox image. There are plenty of fantastic images that definitely meet the criteria and are artistically great, but aren't good infobox images. For example, I think your image of Curve-billed thrasher is a good photo in sharp focus and good quality by the standards of Commons QI. But it doesn't show field markings. Namely it should really show the curved-bill. I think we should have (and we do have) separate guidelines for what makes a good infobox image and what makes a good bird infobox image. Although I think these should also be revised. Polinova (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd agree with @Polinova there that QI shouldn't be an automatic given. Many QI pics (e.g. many are zoo pics of dubious identity) would be completely inappropriate for a taxobox. There is also the point that gaining QI status is very random, as it depends more on nomination than actual quality; some contributors automatically nominate all their pics for it (thinking of all the museum egg pics with QI status in particular!), while others don't nominate their own equally good pics, so they rarely get QI status. Personally, I think self-nomination shouldn't be allowed, but that's a separate thing (I don't nominate any of mine, but if others wish to, they're welcome to do so). And yes, the current image guidelines for taxoboxen do need updating, they're over 5 years old unchanged.
Not sure what you mean by your Using phrasing like "infobox image should be of nominate subspecies" largely just reinforces images of the subspecies English speaking people saw first which might not be indicative of widespread species comment though: Aythya marila was described by Linnaeus (Swedish, writing in Latin) from birds in Sweden, and A. m. nearctica was described by Stejneger (Norwegian, writing about the birds of the Far East of Russia, but with an eye on North America to compare the Scaup populations on either side of the Pacific). So English has nothing to do with it 😆 - MPF (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
It honestly didn't even occur to me that you could nominate your own images. That kind of invalidates the whole thing as a metric to claim a QI image is better than a given other image.
I get your point about Scandinavians vs just the English, but you're kind of sidestepping my point. Nominate subspecies is not necessarily one of or the most prevalent subspecies. It will usually just be the one that people (be they English speaking or other) that named theirs first with a Latin name. These will usually be either European, American, or other peoples who were able to conquer land and used our taxonomic nomenclature. I said English because this is the English Wiki, and many birds got their name because of the prevalence of the British and later American empires in the era when bird taxonomy was taking off. In any case, I don't think we should go out of our way to accentuate that bias in Wikipedia speciesbox images. We should just use one of the more prevalent subspecies. Polinova (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! It's not quite as bad as that, as QI candidates do have to be voted on, they aren't automatically accepted merely by submission. This voting can be by anyone though, and a lot get approved on only a single vote (which potentially makes it wide open to misuse, though I don't know if that happens at all!).
I take your point about first discovery; nevertheless, the structure of taxonomic nomenclature is that a species is defined by its first publication. So if or when a species is subdivided, the nominate subspecies retains the species name, and the divided part takes a new name. So if genetic analysis found that Aythya marila nearctica was more closely related to Aythya affinis (Lesser Scaup) than it is to Aythya marila marila (surprisingly, this hasn't been tested yet, and it is actually a genuine and realistic possibility), then nearctica would have to be split off as a new species Aythya nearctica, while Linnaeus' original would retain the name Aythya marila. So while yes, it is an accident of first discovery, it does have important nomenclatural consequences. This is why I think having the nominate in the box is quite important, as it is (like it or not!) the one that defines the species. - MPF (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes.  It still gets reviewed by other people.  These two images are going to be Featured Pictures, and the standards for that are MUCH more stringent. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
You can nominate your own photos and other people's images too, and then people comment and approve or reject the image for QI.  And then the next level is featured pictures.  If you go to the FP Candidate page these two images will become FPs. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I disagree there.  The field marks are there and you can see the bill is curved.  I don't know why you think that it doesn't.  The description in the article states "It is grey-brown overall with a slightly curved bill" and it really is.  Compare to a Crissal Thrasher for example. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
As you say, one of the important field markings to tell it apart from other birds (like Crissal) is the size and amount of curve in the bill. So in the infobox it is important to show the bill. In your image the bird is facing mostly forward and it gives you a poor view of this. Polinova (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)