Talk:Grebe

Family Burhinidae

kylling er godt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.204.224.77 (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The article says "This order contains only a single family, the Podicipedidae..." however I saw a Berhinus capensus at the Henry Doorly Zoo which this says in the Burhinidae family of the Podicipediforms order. So who's right? Cburnett 02:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

this says it is in the Charadriiformes order so I'll go with that. Cburnett 02:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a country called Checkoslovakia anymore. Wich part of the country the fossil was found?

Name?

The disambiguation page for 'helldiver' links here, but there is no instance of that word on the page. Should there be? I didn't know they were call anything else until a few years ago, but maybe that was because of local slang. EricWesBrown (Talk) 05:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grebe. 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/20160111195520/http://paleofile.com/ to http://www.paleofile.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grebe. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/rp/rp2_abst_e?cjes_e01-057_39_ns_nf_cjes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927024356/http://openclipart.org/cchost/media/tags/aechmophorus to http://openclipart.org/cchost/media/tags/aechmophorus

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

NPOV regarding taxonomy?

The taxonomy section of this article seems remarkably non-WP:NPOV. It cites, in strongly pejorative terms, a 1982 paper in Systematic Zoology by Cracraft. It then goes on to argue (without a reliable source for the critique) that the 1982 paper was flawed. I have no opinion in the matter of the taxonomy of loons versus grebes, but am struck by this unbalanced use of literature. I'll look for something more current and definitive, but absent that wonder whether the Cracraft article should be given more neutral treatment. — soupvector (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Found a recent (2015) analysis by Padilla that seems to support the point of view in the present article - so I'll leave this as-is (I don't know much about birds) - but I think the Padilla ref might be useful for support. — soupvector (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

References

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: I am generally a fairly slow reviewer - in this case, because I know nothing about grebes, so I am checking the sources to see if there are any coverage gaps or neutrality issues! The review is ongoing. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

4444hhhh, I've completed my first run-through on the GA review and would welcome your responses to the few issues listed below. Thank you for your patience! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for your comments on my edits and contribution for this article, pardon for the delay in response as I had to attend work-related matter. I will definitely reword some of these as you are absolutely right in that some are not clear, and others are just grammatically off putting. 4444hhhh (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Great! Please ping me when you are finished responding to these comments and making improvements. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

4444hhhh, it's been a while since you edited on Wiki. Will you have time soon to respond to GA comments? Please let me know forthwith. —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I should be able to in the next upcoming week. I think I have responded to the section 1a the other day (I know I still need to work on some of the rewording). 2c I can easily do tomorrow as I have the sources with me and can add some more citations in to break it up. 4444hhhh (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok! @4444hhhh just ping me forthwith when you feel the article is ready for me to take a look at again. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

4444hhhh No further changes have been made and you haven't edited the article since March 31st. Unfortunately, unless substantial modifications have been made in the next few days (by the 22nd), I'll have to close out this GA review due to inactivity. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid this review is closed unsuccessfully due to nominator inactivity (no edits to the article since the end of March, unresponsive here for more than a week. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Good compliance with duplicate links guidelines! Re: feather density, what does "the highest among most birds" mean? If it's not the highest among all birds doesn't that mean it's not the highest? "invest plumage maintenance the most in birds" invest what? time? Energy? Please resolve the "page needed" template found after this sentence: "Some early grebes even share similar characteristics in the coracoid and humerus seen in palaeloids." Citation needed for "Grebes are perhaps best known for their elaborate courtship displays" - also avoid vague phrase "perhaps" if possible. There are some odd phrasings and grammatical errors - I believe I fixed the most egregious ones myself in my pass and will do another sweep before closing this topic, but if there are any the nominator can get, that would be helpful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass, almost all academic papers (peer-reviewed) or topic-specific books from reputable publishers and experts in the field. Follows scientific citation guidelines. No issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are number of long paragraphs with a few citations plonked right at the end, but nowhere else. I would urge the nominator to put citations every 2-3 sentences at most, and generally only every 1-2, especially for longer citations. Repeating a citation is easy and ensures that later modifications/additions will not result in information drifting away from its relevant source. Needs fixing.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig, manual spotcheck turned up nothing so far. Provisional pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Coverage of evolutionary history is at an appropriate level of detail, as is the anatomical material. All major (and minor) aspects covered; comparison to similar FAs looks good in terms of structure. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of significant overdetail. A few jargony sections can be addressed in the prose review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I was interested in the classification question re: grebes that was previously noted on the talk page (Cracraft article). However my best judgment is that the article is currently neutral and accurately reflects the state of scientific consensus on how grebes evolved/what other birds they are related to. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Fairly recent changes, refimprovements and so on, but nothing major since February. Stable enough. NPOV taxonomy query from talk page appears to have been addressed.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are well chosen, of high quality, and well-captioned. I've made a couple of minor tweaks to them - let me know if you would like to discuss those tweaks here. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.