Wikipedia:Peer review/Greater Scaup/archive1

Greater Scaup edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been expanding upon it since October. It started out as a stub and is now a sizable article, complete with pictures and a range map. I feel that I have gotten the article as far as I can without an offical peer review.

Thanks, --Haydenowensrulz (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The wikilinks Newfoundland, Sterile and America are ambigious. Link them more specifically per MOS:DAB
Capitalisation of scraup is inconsistant, not sure which is correct but not both upper and lowercase. 'so that if the Scaup is killed by a hunter', 'Since the 1980s, scaup populations', 'rafts of scaup that can number in the thousands'
The last external link 'Greater and Lesser Scaups, Environment Canada' appears to be dead, remove or replace it.
Fossils, a search on google scholar(http://scholar.google.com) shows some fossil information for 'Aythya marila fossil' is available. It would seem appropriate to mention a fossil timeframe. http://141.213.232.243/bitstream/2027.42/48486/2/ID336.pdf page 214 says recorded from the Pleistocene. So the appropriate {{fossil range}} can be added to the {{taxobox}}; parameter is called fossil_range if I recall correctly
units metric/imperial. In the description it's metric first '39–56 cm (15–22 in)' in the feeding section it's reversed. ' 20 feet (6 m)'. I think it's suppose to be metric first as this is international topic
Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map is unsourced.
Use of Male/Drake and Hen/female, aren't they the same? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]