Talk:Greater scaup

message: 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)
thread_title: Help

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Help With Health Section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Description 

message: 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)
thread_title: Latin Name Help

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  View History 

message: 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)
replies: text: Put it in and it will most probably be grinded. Under Feeding, maybe ??? --Ettrig (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Zebra Mussel Info Placement Help

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Humans as "Predators??"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: The problem with the way you're doing it now is that the book details have to be given twice, one in the  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)
thread_title: What Else?

message: *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)
thread_title: systematics if possible

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Linking vs defining 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How does this work? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Leading Questions

message: 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)
replies: text: There is a definite lack of wikilinks in the lead. --Ettrig (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I added some wikilinks in the lead section. Do you think it needs more?--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some comment in the peer review. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I also just cited the range map on the commons page.--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I think it needs close-up photographs of the male and female non-American subspecies. Snowman (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: 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)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified