Talk:Common loon

Re: Horror Film Sound Effects?

J. Michael Reiter here, again. Which Horror Films has the Loon's distinctive Laughter appeared in as a sound effect? User:Michael_Reiter 00:36, March 4, 2005 (UTC)

Consistency

Should we not be consistant at using either diver or loon throughout the article? Right now they are both used throughout.say1988 01:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the only superfluous loon. All the other are necessary, to give the NAm species and family names, or because they are part of local alterantive names. jimfbleak 05:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't the article reflect the name given by the AOU (Common Loon) as opposed the European one? Most of this species breeds and winters in North America. Why then is the article's title and content based on the European name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.99.45 (talk) 17:32, May 16, 2007 (UTC)

unfortunately there is a world beyond the USA. This species breeds in Europe, in Iceland, and is a common wintering bird on the Atlantic Coast and to a lesser extent inland. The agreed policy WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English is that unless an article is about something specifically American (eg Red-tailed Hawk) the original spelling used stays. jimfbleak 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's sounds like a rather arrogant position to take when supposedly countering US arrogance. It's not just the Americans who use the term. It's also Canadians. [And, really, the opinion of Europeans who speak English as a second language matters on issues of English terminology? They can define things just fine in their mother tongues.] Incidentally, I think the the word "loon" comes from the Old Norse word for the bird's cry. I'm not so sure it's the original spelling even in the UK. 27 May 2007

This isn't about spelling, so your point about policy is moot. Nor is this specifically about the USA. The AOU names are accepted by more than just the USA. My point is that this is PRIMARILY a North American bird. Sure, it breeds in Iceland, but so? >95% of the population is found in North America. This IS a North American bird, for the most part. Shouldn't that be reflected in the article by using the North American name and mentioning the European name briefly, instead of using the European name and mentioning the North American one briefly? Could someone else (who hasn't made up their mind already) weigh in? 70.48.44.57 18:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely the same policy should apply to bird names as to spelling? If your argument was applied to spelling, the large majority of English speakers (including many in N Am) use "colour" rather than "color", suggesting that that spelling should be used for all articles not restricted to US topics.

Perhaps more to the point, I don't accept that it's only the breeding range (which to remind you does include Europe) that matters. There is no doubt that GND is a common bird in Europe. On your argument, species like Brent Goose, Bewick's Swan and Whooper Swan shouldn't count as British because none of them breed in the UK, despite internationally important numbers wintering in Britain. Incidentally, doesn't the GND spend less than half the year in its breeding range?

What English-speaking countries in the Old World use the AOL name? (Don't go by Avibase lists which use US spelling and names globally). The UK, Ireland and South Africa at least use "European" names for most species. jimfbleak 05:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I would accept that, for example, species that are rare in Europe, such as Gray Catbird should be named and spelt as per AOL. My point is that GND is a common European species. jimfbleak 05:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Common loon" gets many more Google hits than "great northern diver." It should be changed.-Cyanocittacristata 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Google is biased towards the US. Common Loon redirects to GND, and the NA name is mentioned in the first line, so there is little chance for confusion. (I suppose we could put it at Gavia immer and be done except that violates the naming conventions. Dsmdgold 01:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If you wish the agreed policy WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English to be changed, that's the way to go about it. GND is a common bird in Europe (although the MOS policy doesn't actually specify that names used depend on proportions between US/European areas anyway), it winters in large numbers, and is seen regularly well inland. Google is bound to have a NAm slant because that's where all the computers are. There are cases where the American spelling is more appropriate, such as Gray Catbird, where it's also used by the British and Irish authorities, but none of the divers has an exclusively US/Canada breeding and wintering range. Jimfbleak 06:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ask.com and Yahoo! Search also give more results for "common loon." And if Google is biased towards the US because there are more computers, that means there are more PEOPLE, and so more people know it as the common loon. "Cricket," much to my chagrin, goes to the sport, not the insect, because there is more on google about it. The common loon is PRIMARILY a North American bird. I'm not saying it does not occur in other places. But it is primarily a NAm bird.-Cyanocittacristata 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, computers = people. Dsmdgold 03:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The MOS policy says nothing about the number of people being relevant - if you want to do the numbers game, all of wikipedia should be in British English since there are more speakers of that version worldwide (if you doubt that, you are forgetting the Indian subcontinent). And GND both breeds and winters in Europe, so it's not exclusively or almost exclusively American, which is what the policy says Jimfbleak 06:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're forgetting the loon's cultural status in North America. It is a very iconic bird, especially in Canada. As mentioned in the article it has official status in both Ontario and Minnesota, appears on various currency and in various First Nations legends. Can you say that the Great Northern Diver holds this same distinction in Europe? And let's look at the places it lives that also speak English: Ireland & the UK vs. Canada & the US: yeah, I think more people who live along side it refer to it as the Common Loon.--Lairor (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's on the Canadian dollar coin (known there as the "loonie"). While the common loon overwinters in North America and Europe, it breeds predominantly in North America (global population of 580,000 birds, with roughly less than 5000 pairs breeding in UK or Ireland) [1]. Quoting that source, "Although the size of the European population could render it susceptible to the risks affecting small populations, it is marginal to a much larger non-European population." Globally, it's arguably (based largely on its iconic status in Canada) more frequently referred to as the common loon. The association with Canada is strong enough that it would also probably be appropriate to have the rest of the article conform to standards of Canadian English. (I am not Canadian.) Does the loon have a competing association with Europe or some European English-speaking country? Quaternion (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

GND breeds and winters in Europe, the Wikipedia policy is not based on numbers, or even on cultural associations. As a way forward, why not take this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds, lots of Americans and Europeans there? Jimfbleak (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I've moved this discussion to WikiProject Birds. Thanks. Quaternion (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem in the article now is that if the bird is present in significant enough numbers in Europe that "Common Loon" shouldn't be used in the title, that fact does not appear clearly at the beginning of the article. Instead, we are told (1) that the apparently secondary name of "Common Loon" is used in North America, and (2) that its breeding range is almost entirely in North America. Not until the third paragraph do we see mention of populations living in Europe. A non-birding reader (like myself) will read this and wonder "Why isn't the article called Common Loon?" Since the strong feeling of those who support the current article title is due to the bird's presence in Europe, shouldn't that fact be a little more prominent? And if not, that would be a good reason for changing the article title. --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a move at present to adopt Gill & Wright (2006) common names both on Wikipedia and more widely. Under their proposal, the GND would become Great Northern Loon, so if the page is eventually moved, presumably it would be to that title. However, it's a bit premature as yet. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that the map on this page only shows North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.51.87 (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that the Loon article goes by Loon, while the common loon goes by Great Northern Diver? If you're going to force one to use the European naming, then what of the other?Annihilatron (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia only demand consistency within articles (and not between related articles)? In some articles "loon" is the main term used and in this one "diver" is the main one being used.

On a separate note, I did browse through WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English, as jimfbleak suggested, but a search for "original spelling" only resulted in non-helpful hits. If it is true that "unless an article is about something specifically American (eg Red-tailed Hawk) the original spelling used stays," (jimfbleak), then why isn't the Primary color page the "Primary Colour" page instead?

What I did find on WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English that seemed particularly relevant was the section on "Strong national ties to a topic". I would say that Canada has strong national ties to this topic (see previous comments from other users). So perhaps Canadian English should be used, eh?

In the end, as long as "common loon" redirects here, and it is mentioned in the first paragraph, it really isn't that big of a deal. A "lay-person" will be able to figure it out, which is what Wikipedia is all about. Adammanifold (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Should definitely rename this article. I have never, in 30 years of living around this bird, heard someone refer to it by any other name than "common loon." It's official name is "common loon," and it is referred to as such both in common speech and in literature related to the species. The province of Ontario refers to ths bird (the official bird of Ontario) in government literature as "the common loon." In fact, the article "loon" itself refers to this species as "the common loon." There is no reason that this article should have any other title.69.60.237.4 (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

and in the UK I've never heard it referred to as the Common Loon, the official name here is Great Northern Diver, so arguing from where you live is unhelpful. This is not a specifically NAm topic, and was written in BE originally jimfbleak (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that 300 million+ people refer to it as "common loon" and 60 million call it "great northern diver" says a lot about what the title of the article should be. More people refer to it as "common loon." The majority of references for this article call it "common loon." The AOU refer to it as "common loon." There are 408000 results for the Google search "common loon," and 272000 results for "great northern diver." Do you have a VALID reason why this article's current title should remain?69.60.237.4 (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguing from populations is nonsense (apart from the numbers being incorrect). If we are going to do that, let's have "colour", "grey" and "favourite" please - far more people use these spellings than the NAm spellings (BE isn't only used in the UK - Ireland, Australia, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, many other commonwealth countries, estimated number of speakers outside NAm about 700 million). The AOU uses American spelling, what a surprise - the BOU uses British spelling! There are more computers in NAM than elsewhere, so the Google count is irrelevant - almost any search will bring American spelling in the majority. Unfortunately for US cultural imperialism, the Wikipedia policy is not

1. I have lived in America for 30 years and and only my spelling is valid
2. America organisations use American spelling, so only that spelling is valid
3. I think that there are more AE speakers than BE speakers, because I only know one country that uses BE. Therefore everyone should use AE because only numbers count.
4. OK, I'm wrong about the numbers, but only the US matters anyway

Unfortunately, there is an valid agreed policy. Either stick to that or get the policy changed, not make up your own chauvinist rules. jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed, jimfbleak, that you're the only one defending the current title, while everyone else who has posted to this discussion disagrees with you? The common loon is the official bird of Canada's most populous province, and of an American state. It appears on Canadian currency. This is not a spelling issue, but a naming issue. Even the article states that this is primarily a North American bird. Since the bird is so well-beloved by the Canadians, and it's such a central part of their national iconography, it seems like the Canadian name should be used primarily. It seems that way to everyone except you--read the above discussion, and it's clear that you're simply being stubborn. 99.150.119.209 (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

so once again more people = right read the existing policy, don't make up your own jimfbleak (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop just pointing to the policy, which I HAVE read. And please, start assuming that the people who are posting here are doing so in good faith. When a dozen reasonably-minded people tell you you're wrong, isn't it time to start considering that maybe you might be wrong? Canadians (of whom there are only about 30 million) have a close tie to this subject--and they all find it jarring to see the article about this bird called the wrong thing. Also, the majority of the birds live in North America--the article itself says so.99.150.119.209 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This article discussion seems to be a lot of wind being blowing around a very small issue. Like many articles this one has a watchward who resists change based on some inane detail that is essentially a much ado about nothing. Everyone else seems to say jimfbleak's position is tenuous at best and should yield to the overwhelmingly more relevant American and Canadian identification with a native bird whereas he essentially is holding ground saying "If it's no big deal, why even change it?" and calling Americans (and therefore tacitly Canadians) Imperialists as he defends a trivial naming issue. The reason there are so many "more people" who speak British English as the secondary standard (and the reason Americans and Canadians do primarily, btw) is British Imperialism. FACT: North Americans are the largest concentration of English speaking peoples in areas where this bird lives; most people, most birds. We beg you to come up with a simpler axiom that jives with the rules of wikipedia and cultural significance. If Indians, Nigerians, Australians, etc. had populations, rather than just spoke British English secondarily or even primarily, you might have a point. This article should be moved and you should leave it be.Levelistchampion (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I keep saying read the policy because it doesn't say anything about there being more Americans than Brits (or almost everything would be in US English - but see above, there are more BE speakers globally). Its also clear that this bird is not exclusively US, I see dozens every winter. If you really want to change the name, do it properly and raise the issue at the relevant project - Brits aren't in a majority there, and I'll happily go along with the consensus whatever is decided. I certainly won't otherwise agree to a clear breach of the policy, but project consensuses are taken as policy within their mandate, so I'd be happy with that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to resurrect this discussion but this should be moved to Great Northern Loon. Before anyone brings up the MoS page, I would point out that that page is specifically and only for Spelling and not for common vernacular names. The places to look are Tree of life and wiki: Birds. WP:B currently uses the lists [2] which has Great Northern Loon.--Kevmin (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested Move: IOC name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Awickert (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Great Northern Diver → Great Northern Loon — This page was moved from Great Northern Diver to Great Northern Loon within the context of the Wikiproject:Birds' initiative to use the official names for bird articles at Wikipedia in line with the official list of English names maintained by the International Ornithological Congress. In that context, I propose that the page is moved from Great Northern Diver to Great Northern Loon.

Support

1. Per IOC name standardisation. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. It's a Common Loon, not a Great Northern Diver. No! It's a Great Northern Diver, not a Common Loon. Guess what kids, Solomon judged and decided that neither side was more right than the other and we're lumped with this compromise name and the happy side effect that both sides are going to be pissed off. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Per my comment above (Aug. 3), IOC name standardization, and Sabine's Sunbird.--Kevmin (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. I requested that the original move be reversed because it needs discussion - what with the long-running dispute on this article. So long as there is discussion, I have no problem with moving to the IOC nomenclature. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Slap on an international standard and end the silliness. Awickert (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Support having fought long and hard to keep this at GND against the hordes of loon-atics, Even I can see the logic of GNL, and I moved it there. I think it's great to have a name that nobody uses Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. (headdesk headdesk headdesk) - we-ell, if all the other divers are now loons then this should be as well..but .....aargh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

   It is a fucking awful name, isn't it? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

8. Support In light of the wider apparent consensus for a naming convention within this article's scope, as cited in the nom.
   — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I consider the current state of affairs to be a clear consensus and will move the page accordingly. I will not archive this section at the moment in case we see an unexpected wave of opposes. Awickert (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just moved it. On second thought, I will close and any opposes can reopen a new discussion. Awickert (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In popular culture

There is no "In popular culture" section. This bird is central to the plot of the novel Great Northern? by Arthur Ransome (in which it is referred to throughout as Great Northern Diver); basically, has this bird been seen to nest in northern Scotland, or have they mistaken another species entirely? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This can be added to the Relationship with humans section for the time being. Good point though. Once there is a solid chunk of material, splitting out as a Cultural depictions subsection is prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Added a paragraph. How's that? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's great :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Great northern diver/Common loon fun

OK kids........I was looking at the common name changes from the last IOC post. Since we standardize English names there I thought I would start a discussion on the name change before proposing a move.....so here goes..... As we all know, Europe and Asia use Great Northern Diver for the common name of Gavia immer. North America uses Common Loon. The IOC used Great Northern Loon as a spirit of compromise as the name of the bird. On the Jan 25, 2016 post, the IOC reverted to using North America's name of Common Loon stating the compromise name never received any traction. So the two arguments as I see them are to move the name to Common Loon and to use our standard for English name convention, or to keep the name as Great northern loon, since it has been stable for a while, but we would be the only ones calling it that.....my vote is to switch to Common Loon, but I'm biased being American........Let's fire it up!......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as a Brit, I fear 'Great Northern Loon' was only ever an acceptable compromise to American eyes. It just made me think of a particularly irritating colleague who has a Yorkshire accent. Best to go with IOC. William Avery (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Common loon for all reasons above...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been a long-time advocate of GND on the basis of varieties of English, but I think to be consistent we need to go loony Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Copy editing

I have accepted your request to have this article copyedited. I will keep you informed on how the work is progressing. David Thibault (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm nearly done the copyedit. I'm going to do a second pass right now, and will let you know when everything is completed. David Thibault (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Second pass done. I have submitted a few final queries. Please see them below. I have checked off all previous queries that have been resolved. David Thibault (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyediting queries have all been resolved. It has been a pleasure working on this article. David Thibault (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Copy editing Queries

Lead

• I'm not sure who "They" refers to in this sentence (last sentence in second paragraph of lead). Are you referring to the parents? The chicks? The parents and the chicks?

They leave the breeding ground before ice formation in the fall.

Probably the original editor meant the chicks as the adults tend to migrate earlier than the chicks by a few weeks but both are gone before the ice forms.Dabbler (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In bird species, the chicks leave the nest after either certain event or a certain amount of time. In this, the event which marks the chicks leaving the nest is the ice formation. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Then I advise changing this sentence (and the previous one) to read: "The chicks are capable of diving underwater and can typically fly at 10–11 weeks old; they leave the breeding ground before ice formation in the fall." Okay? David Thibault (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is better. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I will make the change. David Thibault (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

• The lead contained text that was almost verbatim to that found in the Distribution and Habitat section. I have left the text in the D/H section as it is (edited for clarity) and have replaced the text in the lead with a brief summary (see below). Is this okay?

Original: During their breeding season, they live on lakes and other waterways in Canada and the northern United States, as well as in Greenland and Iceland to the east, and in Alaska to the west. They winter as far south as Baja California, Sonora, northern Sinaloa, southern Texas (rarely northern Tamaulipas), and east as far as northwestern Europe. They are spread throughout the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to the Gulf of Mexico.

Revised: It is found on lakes and waterways in North America, Iceland, and northwestern Europe. David Thibault (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It is necessary to mention that they are found in those places during the breeding season. (white stork for example) Also, I think mentioning the areas it is found in would better. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I have rewritten the text so that it has all of the information found in the original (above), but it is reworded differently to avoid the repeating of information verbatim later on. Here is the revised text:

Revision 2: During breeding season, it lives on lakes and other waterways in Canada, the northern United States including Alaska, as well as Greenland and Iceland. It winters as far south as Mexico, and as far east as northwestern Europe. It can also be found along the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to the Gulf of Mexico. David Thibault (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds great! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

• In the second paragraph, should the word “mounds” be singular since the sentence is talking about building a (one) nest?

Both members of the pair build a large nest out of dead marsh grasses and other plants formed into mounds along the vegetated shores of lakes.

Should it read “into a mound”? David Thibault (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a slight adjustment to the second edit (in the Breeding section), to make it singular all the way. David Thibault (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

• The third paragraph of the lead contains a lot of verbatim text that appears later in the first paragraph of the Status and conservation section. I recommend mentioning only the most important information in the lead (one or two significant designations) to avoid this repetition. If the third paragraph is then too small after removing the information, you could give a brief summary of the second paragraph from the Status and conservation section, or possibly add some other new information. David Thibault (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Reduced the lead. Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! David Thibault (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

Description

• I've revised the following sentence (middle of description section). Is it still factually correct?

Original: The neck is short, thick, and is encircled with a characteristic black ring, having two white neck-laces.

Revision: The neck is short, thick, and encircled with a characteristic black ring and two white necklaces.

Yes, it is awesome! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

• I've combined the following two sentences (first paragraph of description section). Is this still factually correct? The second sentence previously followed a description of non-breeding plumage.

The heavy dagger-like bill is evenly tapered and grayish, sometimes having a black tip. The bill colour and angle distinguish this species from the similar yellow-billed loon.

Yes, all are correct! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

• The last part of the description section needs to be revised for clarity. I have left it untouched as I do not wish to inadvertently change the meaning. Here are some possible revisions (but only if the facts are true):
  • "Juvenile birds often have [a] [brown-grey] nape..."
  • "They have a dark grey to [black] head..."
  • "white throat, [cheeks]...
  • The last sentence is unclear and will need to be rewritten

Juvenile birds often have dark brownish grey nape which may look darker than the pale-edged black feathers. They have a dark grey to dark head, neck, and upperparts with white throat, cheecks, and underparts. The brown During the first winter, the bill shape of the young common loons may not be fully developed as that of the adult.

All of the changes you mentioned are correct. Just some sentence issues were there earlier and the changes mentioned by you retained the facts. I have fixed them now.

I have also merged the non-breeding plumage description with the first paragraph, as in many of the bird FAs (like banded stilt) there is a separate paragraph for juveniles and the non-breeding description is present in the first paragraph itself. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the response. David Thibault (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

• In the Description section I moved the text discussing non-breeding plumage so it immediately follows the text discussing breeding plumage. Text describing the bill and basic behaviour is now its own paragraph. Is this okay?

There is also one phrase that may need to be deleted or moved. It’s in the first sentence discussing non-breeding plumage:

…normally held horizontal to water.

Does this apply to common loons in non-breeding plumage, or to common loons all year round? If it's all year, it would be best to move it to the second paragraph and add some additional text to it. David Thibault (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Moved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. I noticed one other phrase that I believe needs to be moved. It appears in the first paragraph:

...The neck is short, thick,...

Does this trait apply to common loons in breeding plumage, or to common loons all year round? If it's all year, it should be moved to the second paragraph and reworded for clarity. Here is a possible revision:

Possible revision (but only if the facts are true): "The bill colour and angle distinguish this species from the yellow-billed loon. The neck is short and thick." David Thibault (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Moved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! David Thibault (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

Distribution and habitat

• In the first paragraph the phrase “to Denmark” was added. If this is okay, it should also be mentioned in the lead. Here are possible revisions (but only if you want Denmark mentioned):

Lead: “…as well as Greenland, Iceland, and Denmark.”

D/H: “…as well as in southern parts of Greenland, in Iceland and Denmark to the east,…”

I have reversed the order of the countries (Iceland, then Denmark) so the order follows their appearance on the globe, travelling east. David Thibault (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Denmark really a nesting location? Because on the range map it is shown for wintering but not nesting. Can you provide a citation saying that they nest in Denmark. The confusion may have arisen because Greenland is still an autonomous possession of Denmark and Iceland used to be until about 1945. Dabbler (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not even IUCN has it. Great catch! Removed it instead. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good and thank you Dabbler for catching that! I made two minor edits for clarity to the two locations where "Denmark" was added. David Thibault (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

Behaviour

The following sentence in the lead to this section may need to be revised. Is the word "landing" correct, or is it a typo? Should it read "ungainly on land" instead? (Because of its webbed feet)

It needs a long distance to gain momentum for take-off, and is ungainly on landing. David Thibault (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks! David Thibault (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

Feeding

• I deleted the phrase "the grasp of" because the word "grasp" is usually used to describe one grabbing something with their fingers or arms. Revised text is shown below. Okay?

Original: If the fish attempt to evade the grasp of the common loon...

Revised: If the fish attempt to evade the common loon... David Thibault (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep! Looks awesome yet again. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks! David Thibault (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

• The first paragraph contains two sentences that both discuss freshwater (lake) diets and saltwater (ocean coast) diets:

"This especially includes perch and sunfish in lakes, and Atlantic croaker and Gulf silversides on ocean coasts."

"Freshwater diets consist of pike, perch, sunfish, trout, and bass; saltwater diets consist of rock fish, flounder, sea trout, and herring."

The information in them could be combined into one sentence, as long as references are applied as necessary.

This paragraph also contains a long list of fish that the common loon forages for, but the fish on this list do not appear in the other two sentences I mention above (with the exception of "pike", although the long list specifies "northern pike"). The list is fine as it is, as it gives information about the vast variety of fish that common loons eat, but it would be best to explain in the combined sentence (discussed above) that freshwater/saltwater diets "primarily consist of...". For example:

“Freshwater diets primarily consist of a, b, and c; saltwater diets primarily consist of d, e, and f.” David Thibault (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Moved the previous sentence. As for the mentioning of fish up to 10 inches in length, I am not able to find the reference about each species, whether it falls under freshwater diet or saltwater diet. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That looks good. After reading it through a few times, I still think the word "primarily" needs to be included (if the facts allow it), so readers understand that common loons eat fish from the long list, but their primary diet consists of other fish (not listed in the long list). Here is a possible revision:

Possible revision (but only if the facts are true): "Freshwater diets primarily consist of pike, perch, sunfish, trout, and bass; saltwater diets primarily consist of rock fish, flounder, sea trout, herring, Atlantic croaker and Gulf silverside." David Thibault (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! David Thibault (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

Breeding

• The term "bow-jumping" is used in the first paragraph. It's unclear what this behaviour is; it would help to have a short explanation appear after it, in square brackets. David Thibault (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Explained, does it look better? Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks good, but I would recommend including a short explanation for the term "rushes" as well. I have a general idea of what it means, but it's better if the reader doesn't have to make an assumption. David Thibault (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Explained that too. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I've reviewed the added text but it will need to be revised for clarity. I've consulted the reference and believe it is best to quote the text verbatim, for the sake of clarity. Below is a possible revision:

Original: (running along the surface with its either half extended or folded and flapping at about the same speed as when taking off)

Possible Revision (Please consult the reference to confirm that I have accurately quoted the text [On page 456?]): (running "along the surface with its wings either folded or half-extended and flapping at about the same speed as when taking off") David Thibault (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is accurate. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

• These three sentences appear in the third paragraph:

Both the male and female parents build the nest and take turns incubating the eggs. The eggs hatch in just under a month. Usually, only one brood is laid with a nesting period of two days.

For the first sentence, I recommend moving the text "Both the male and female parents build the nest..." to the second paragraph, which talks about nesting. The rest of the sentence ("...take turns incubating the eggs") is good where it is (Although you would want to add "Both the male and female parents" to the beginning of it). If you do move the first part of the sentence, ensure that a reference is applied to it if necessary.

True that. I moved and cited it. Does it look better? Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks great! David Thibault (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

For the second and third sentences, they seem to contradict each other. "The eggs hatch in just under a month", but the "nesting period" is only "two days". If both sentences are correct, some additional information may be required to help explain the difference between the two events. David Thibault (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I restructured the paragraph. I removed the "just under a month" part too, as I was unable to find a reliable source for that. I found one, which seemed unreliable. Also, it should have been nestling instead. Fixed that too! Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Better, but I noticed a different contradiction when I re-read the paragraph: It says there is a "nestling period of two days", and then a few sentences later it says that "Within hours of hatching, the young begin to leave the nest...". Only one of these can be correct, yes? They either stay in the nest for two days, or "within hours of hatching", they "begin to leave the nest". David Thibault (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The second sentence says about a few hours after hatching, and not that it takes a few hours to hatch, so I do not think anything is wrong there. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I looked up the word "nestling" on merriam-webster.com and it says that it is "a young bird that has not left the nest". It's used as a noun. Could your reference be using the word "nestling" as a verb? To avoid confusing the reader, I recommend the following revision (I will leave it to you to make the revision, as there is a reference attached to this sentence):

Original: Usually, only one brood is laid with a nestling period of two days.

Possible revision (Please ensure to retain the reference if necessary) Usually, only one brood is laid. David Thibault (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Revised. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

Vocalization

This section is excellent but could be improved by adding audio samples of the common loon's wail and hoot. David Thibault (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

So true, but I do not think we have wail and hoot calls as well. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

That's okay! David Thibault (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

Nest predators and hazards

The following sentence is great, but it's unclear what the loon uses to impale the predator. The bill? I will leave it to you to add any necessary information.

When a predator approaches (either the loon's nest or the loon itself), common loons sometimes attack the predator by rushing at it and attempting to impale it through the abdomen or the back of the head or neck. David Thibault (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, added it. The source says bill too. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Great! David Thibault (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

Status and conservation

In the middle of the first paragraph there is a sentence that may need to be revised for clarity:

In Europe it occurs in 20 IBAs, including in Ireland, Norway (Svalbard and mainland Norway), Iceland, Spain and in the United Kingdom.

Possible revision (but only if the facts are true): "In Europe it appears in 20 Important Bird Areas (IBA), including Ireland, Norway (Svalbard and mainland Norway), Iceland, Spain, and in the United Kingdom." David Thibault (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Revised. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

In popular culture

In the second paragraph there is a clause that I've edited for clarity, but I want to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed its meaning. Is it an Ojibwa story, or is it a story within an Ojibwe story? Please review the change:

Original: These include a story of a loon which created the world in an Ojibwe story

Revised: These include an Ojibwe story of a loon which created the world David Thibault (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are right again. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

References

Reference number 28 appears to contain very limited information. Is it possible to add to it? David Thibault (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not able to find it. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Reference number 27 is used to cite "haunting", "beautiful", and "thrilling", but it doesn't mention "mystical" or "enchanting". As Reference 28 provides very limited information on the name of the source, I would recommend deleting it from the Reference section and removing the words "mystical" and "enchanting" from the text (unless another source can be found that mentions these two words in relation to a common loon's call). David Thibault (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. David Thibault (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)  Resolved

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common loon. 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/20100813212243/http://www.northland.edu/sigurd-olson-environmental-institute-loon-watch-FAQs.htm to http://www.northland.edu/sigurd-olson-environmental-institute-loon-watch-FAQs.htm

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) 10:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

• "on the IUCN Red List of Endangered Species (IUCN)" you used the abbreviation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Woops! Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm trying to find "Loons / divers - names -myths – Scandinavian perspective" online, but I can't. Where'd you find it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I was unable to find it either (was there from before I started editing it). On a search, the closest I could get to finding an alternative source was this, but this only has a snippet view which I am unsure of.

maybe you should just replace the ref with something else   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I mean, I am unable to find an alternative ref. The closest I could find was this which due to being a snippet view, I am unsure of. Do you think I should remove the information cited by the ref? Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

this ref says it derives from Norwegian   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• ref no. 6 has an ISBN of 978-0-8032-2566-4   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think there's something wrong with ref no. 8, you just need to do {{cite web}} and then add the parameter |url and use the deadlink for it, and then add the parameter |archiveurl= and use the wayback link for it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• ref no. 10 as a jstor at 40506778

Added url. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• You may want to be consistent in either saying "the common loon" or "common loons" (singular vs. plural)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Does it look better? Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• ref no. 11 says subscription required, but it's not   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, not everything is visible without subscription. If you click the "read more" link under any section, it would ask you for subscription. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• use this converter to convert ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 as per WP:ISBN   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

it seems you've missed a couple (like ref no. 31). All ISBN-13 number start with "978"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It might be easier to find them if you're on desktop to hit ctrl+f and type in isbn in the little box that pops up, then look through all the ISBN's to see which ones don't start with 978   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I thought the ones having dashes were ISBN 13's. Fixed them all now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• ref no. 15 needs page numbers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Added. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• you may want to be consistent on how the access dates and archive dates are written (like 26 August 2017 vs 26-8-17)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• ref no. 18 has a url at http://www.biokids.umich.edu/critters/Gavia_immer/   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Changed the ref to HBW instead. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to wikilink "habitat" (but it's fine if you want to)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Unlinked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• for refs no. 21 and no. 22, you don't have to say "anonymous" if you don't know the name of the author   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed "anonymous" from all the refs. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• You sometimes miss the "the's" I'm noticing a lot (but I'm fixing them)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Is any more missing "the" remaining? Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• when you say "it's accidental in..." did you mean "invasive"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The source doesn't say invasive, so I think it would be better to leave it accidental. I am unsure of whether it is invasive or only accidental. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• refs no. 16 and no. 27 are the same   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Merged. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think it's notable to mention that people find flying loons haunting   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No I meant remove the entire sentence "Its call has been alternately called 'beautiful' and 'thrilling' "   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Woops! Removed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Though a normal depth of 4 to 10 m with a maximum duration of about one minute underwater, it's dive has been recorded to a depth of up to 70 m" this sentence needs to be reworded   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Reworded. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for picking it up for a review! Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• ref no. 32 has a jstor of 4160227   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• refs no. 6 and no. 33 are the same   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Merged. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• you link "acidity" to Acid but I'm pretty sure it's pH   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• refs no. 36, no. 37, and no. 39 aren't done right   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed 37 and 39, and was unable to find 36 so I removed the line that is cited by ref 36. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Is this written in British English or American English? You use "colour" but then you also say "characterized"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

British English can use -ize as well as -ise endings See [3] Dabbler (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• ref no. 41 is a deadlink and it needs an access date   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• ref no. 19 confuses me, I think someone just went to easybib.com and put in a url, then forgot to mention it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Changed the ref instead. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• " Its population trend is stable, and thought not to have declined by 30% over ten years or three generations, and thus is not a rapid enough decline to warrant a vulnerable rating" how about you skip the 30% part and just say "its population trend is stable"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think you could use better refs than ref 50 (for example, this, this, this, etc.)

Replaced. Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• the source for the range map (File:Gavia immer map.svg) links to another Wikimedia Commons page (File:Gavia Immer-map-localisation.svg) which has a deadlink source   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what to do on this. I did not find any archive on wayback machine, so what do you think should be done? Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

you could ask for help at the Wikimedia commons village pump, I have no idea how that wayback thing works but maybe someone else with a bit more experience might be able to help   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

have you asked over there? In my experience they're pretty snappy with it, usually within hours or the next morning there's a response   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I have asked there and also to Jimfbleak, and Shyamal has created a new range map for it, so replaced it. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I think I have addressed all the issues. It was such an amazing review by you! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Non reviewer comments

• Happened to notice this was being reviewed. Glad to see improvements being made to an important article, but even at a quick pass, noticed some issues that need to be addressed. this result is very bothersome; you need to be more careful when paraphrasing. The Sbaa.ca source is questionable; the use of Ransome's original book as a source for an entire paragraph is definitely not okay. And finally the colors in the map do not match those in the key. Vanamonde (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Added secondary source ref for Ransome paragraph. Dabbler (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dabbler! Also, I have paraphrased it a bit more, and I have removed the information cited by Sbaa as I was not able to find an alternative source for it. The colour has been fixed too. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• A further quick spot check reveals this: this is used as a source for "The common loon has disappeared from some lakes in eastern North America, and its breeding range has moved northward". Even if we accept the source as reliable, it only supports the "range moving northward" aspect; it does not support "The common loon has disappeared from some lakes in eastern North America". At the very least, a detailed source check is necessary here; and Aditya, you need to be a lot more careful. Vanamonde (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have now specified its disappearance from its southeastern Canadian range and cited it. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe the reference you use only applies to the province of Alberta, not Canada in general and so does not really support the statement (even though it is a direct quote). Dabbler (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Oops, by mistake. It is southeastern instead. Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The reference in question is an Atlas of Alberta which does not deal with birds outside that province, I think that it is wrong to use it as a citation for Canada as a whole. While the loon was in decline in southern Ontario, Quebec and the northeastern United States a few decades ago,, it seems to have rebounded and no longer on the endangered species list in those areas. Dabbler (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for performing those fixes. I do think, though, that you need to go back through the article and make sure that the sources that you have used do in fact support the content you used them for. This is not a trivial issue; apart from the fact that verifiability is a core principle, It is difficult for an independent person to perform this sort of check in detail: meaning that this is a very easy way for misinformation to get into Wikipedia. Vanamonde (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your inputs! Yeah, before replying to your previous comment, I had checked most of the sources where I found one discrepancy and fixed that. After I started editing, I have cited everything I have mentioned in the article, so just had to check out the details before I started editing. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Adityavagarwal, I've started reading this, making changes as I go, basically lead and taxo so far, please revert anything you don't like. I think you are over reffing; for example, in description you add the hbw ref to virtually every sentence, one at the end of the para will do if there is nothing intervening. There are some other local names which may be useful, I'll dig them out. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Jim, I have fixed the multiple refs issues. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how much time I'll have this weekend, but just a couple of comments for now

• Folk names are mentioned in two sections at present, all should be in "popular culture". The Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation people of Old Crow, Yukon, call it Ttretetere. no indication of why this non-English name is significant to this article, we don't normally put in just translations of bird names, mignt just as well have French Plongeon huard. I'll add a bit to common names when I get time. Some Scots names are corruptions of old Gaelic names referring to its distinctive call, and some are euphemisms to refer to this bird believed to be an ill omen

So true. Moved "An old colloquial name from New England was call-up-a-storm, as its noisy cries supposedly foretold stormy weather. The Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation people of Old Crow, Yukon, call it Ttretetere." to "popular culture". Should I remove the Tretetere mention altogether? Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Impressed that we have a predator section, wonder if there are any parasites?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Would have been great if we could have a section! However, I was not able to find anything on parasitism, and also this article's page 100 (let me know if you want the article, as it is on my JSTOR shelf) states that brood parasitism is unlikely due to the breeding adult defending its territory (added this point in the breeding section, now). Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a look in Rothchild and Clay, but I'm very dubious that we'll find anything. Unless we can find what the Crow name means (perhaps onomatopoeic), it's basically just one of potentially dozens of names in other languages, something we have always dissuaded. I'll keep working through the text as I get time. I've finished scheduling this month's TFAs, so that will help Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure! I have also removed the Tretetere mention now (any other names which are removable?). Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that the other names are referenced as English words, although many are corruptions of older Gaelic or Icelandic words. Should we put the old names in quotation marks (words as words) as per corn crake#Names? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the same. The words are exact. I have put them in quotations marks, could you check them out (and correct if I wrongly put them)? Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

A google search for Gavia immer parasites, suggests that there are quite a few parasites, and Rothschild also mentions a few. Shall I write that up (probably not today)? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah buddy! Please feel free to add anything lacking in the article whenever you are free. Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll do the parasites today if I get time. Comparing with red-throated loon, I see we have nothing on fossils, so that will need a look. Lockwood mentioned Kingsley's poem "The Sands of Dee", but the link seems too tenuous. Apart from parasites and fossils I think the content is comprehensive, but we need to check that the refs are all fit for purpose, remove the many overlinks (especially in Conservation) and general buff the prose to FA quality Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• There is so much about heavy metals and loons in GScholar but little mention in the article. It seems to be an oversight. Shyamal (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

References, first pass

Adityavagarwal, there are a number of points to discuss, you may find more

• For initials, some refs have full stops, some (mine) don't. doesn't matter as long as we agree a style

Changed to ones without the fullstops (I am sure as you keep no fullstops, this style would be better!). Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't like links to Google Books because, except for some free ebooks, what you can see varies with location and time. I never put them in my FAs for that reason. Any views?

Ah, so should I keep no url altogether? Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the temporary exception, I think not. It's not a requirement to have a web link for a print source, and I think it's increasingly common not to do so unless it's to permanently available full text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Onto it! Removing the links. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed them! Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't normally link to abstracts where the full text isn't freely available since that amounts to linking to a sales page. What do you think? There is one 2017 ref where I might have to keep the link unless we can find the page range

Yeah, feel free to change it (and anything else you feel problematic)! In the mean time, I am searching for an alternate ref too. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• The following refs at least are defective

• 10, 11 are not satisfactory for an FA, I can definitely replace these

As said above, replace anything you feel is problematic (you know much more than I do...)! Also, in the mean time, I am looking for alternate refs. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• 21 is incomplete, no author or publisher

Yeah, I was not able to find the author for any "Environmental Impact Statement" book. It is not mentioned anywhere near the pages cited, or in the first few pages (cover page, etc.) As for the publisher, is it "United States Department of Agriculture" (not mentioned directly anywhere, but the cover page has the name, so I am unsure of it)?

• 49 and 75 are incomplete and I can't access the text. can you fix the refs?
• Do you think ref 31 (Burton and Burton) is an acceptable source?

Maurice Burton, one of the authors seems pretty good zoologist even though in the article it says "Many of Burton's books were aimed at a juvenile audience", but I don't think the ref 31 is for a juvenile audience (Robert is his son, as said in the article). However, if you think it should be change, would change it. Let me know! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

[http://www.birdobserver.org/Portals/0/PDF_open/bo27-3-web.pdf?ver=2017-02-10-105713-420#view=Fit this] doesn't support last ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)]  Done

Adityavagarwal Over the next couple of days I'll try to improve the remaining incomplete or low-grade refs, I've found a book that might help. We still haven't really addressed Shyamal's comment about heavy metals above either, and we need a Golden Pond ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was planning to address Shaymal's comment addressed by tomorrow, and the remaining of your comments so far, too. The EIS books thing is puzzling me a lot, as there is no author available for it, do you think I should change the ref altogether? Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The EIS isn't a big deal, it's not unknown for publications to lack authors Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

To do

Adityavagarwal, since your last edit, I've done this. I've expanded heavy metals as suggested by Shyamal, replaced some refs and fixed some others, and generally copy-edited as I went.

• To me, it looks pretty comprehensive, can you think of anything that we still need to add or expand?

Checking out now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've replaced some refs with better ones, can you see any left that might be challenged?

Checking out now! Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've been through the refs to make sure that they are formatted consistently, including removing website parameters where they are formatted like urls, changing pages= to page= for single pages, but I'm bound to have missed some, so it wouldn't do any harm for you to check too
• I've had a read though to tweak the prose a bit, and I think this is something we both need to do again. It's surprisingly easy to miss one's own errors!

Yeah! Checking it now. :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• This article started in BE, but appears to have migrated mostly to AE, which i can live with. However, it appears to not be consistent, eg "grey"

BE, AE? :P No idea what they are. As for consistency, do you recommend the UK or the US English? Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy WP:ENGVAR is that an article started in one variation of English, Commonwealth or US or some other, should normally remain in that language style/spelling etc. unless there is an overriding reason to change it and a consensus of editors agree. As I am bilingual in British and Canadian English I tend towards those variants, but I am not really the right person to fix an article as my own style is rather mixed up too!. Dabbler (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow, now that I look at BE and AE again, I know they mean British English and American English! :P I thought they were abbreviated for some esoteric things lol. Yeah, we use British English too. I think Jim would be able to say about what style we should keep. Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

In practical terms, I'm away 16-24 September, but I think that it could be nominated straight after that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Jim I apologize for the delay. I was sure to get the issues solved at Sunday, but I din't have internet access for the past two days. Got back just a few minutes ago, and am checking out the article right away. Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal no problem, we are all volunteers with real lives. I spent yesterday on a bird-watching boat trip, so I've been off-duty too! I started this article, so I would have used BE, but the breeding range is almost entirely NAm, so there is a case for AE. I'm happy to go with your call on this. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It should be kept in Canadian English, which is almost identical to BE. This bird is featured on the Canadian dollar, which is colloquially called "the loonie". Canada is also is primary breeding range even though like many Canadians it does winter in the US. Dger (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Got it, Dger! Thanks a lot. :D Jim, I have double checked it now, and converted AEs to BEs. No issues on sources either. Also, there seems no prose issues either! I hope you had a great bird-watching boat trip! If you liked, should we nominate it right away? I would be addressing any FAC issues mentioned even while you were away! Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal, Fine with me, as long as you're happy to do the heavy lifting at FAC until I return Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Jim Yeah buddy! Would be glad to heavy lift it. :D Nominating it! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

link for "fencing" to "fencing response"?

I don't see that we have a good article to point to, but fencing response is not the correct place to point. Is there another word besides "fencing" that could be used for this behavior that works better? Or can we add something about fencing analogs to the article about the sport? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved somewhat by unlinking. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Useful source

For common names such as "ember goose" this, this and immer - these sources might be useful. Shyamal (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

possible improvements and updates to common loon page

Hi,

I read with interest your material on the common loon, which I have studied for the past 26 years in northern Wisconsin. The statement contains lots of useful information about loons. I was a tad disappointed to see that corrections and changes that I made several years ago had been lost. I realize that dynamic editing is the essence of what you guys are doing, but it seems a shame, for example, that the article no longer includes the important fact that male loons choose the location for the nest, which I added some years ago. (This fact is supported unequivocally by a published scientific article.) Also I note that the article includes nothing about habitat selection in loons, despite the fact that they practice natal habitat imprinting. (That is, a young loon tends to settle on a territory very similar in size and pH to its natal lake.) These are only two among dozens of interesting and useful behavioral/ecological patterns related to habitat settlement, chick-rearing, territory defense, black fly parasitism, survival, and behavioral changes with age that we have published on since the beginning of the study. There are also a few misleading/erroneous statements in the article, such as one that states: "Pairs begin breeding at two years of age..." In fact, of the scores of young birds we have seen to breed for the first time, none has been younger than 4 years old. Perhaps that statement meant to point to the pair bond, not members of the pair, but even if so, that is also not true. We have observed dozens of newly-formed pairs to breed successfully in their first year together.

Anyway, I just thought I might help update the page, make some corrections, and restore some information that seems to have been lost in editing, as these changes would truly make the page a current, useful source for info about common loons. Let me know if these updates and corrections are of interest.

Here are some published articles that include some of the findings I have alluded to (and many others).

1. Piper, W.H., Brunk, K.B. Jukkala, G. L., Andrews, E.A., Yund, S.R., and Gould, N.G. 2018. Aging male loons make a terminal investment in territory defense. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 72: 95-106.

2. Piper, W.H., Tischler, K.B., and Reinke, A. 2018. Common Loons respond adaptively to a black fly that reduces nesting success. Auk 135:788-797.

3. Spool, J., Riters, L., and Piper, W.H. 2017. Investment in territorial defence relates to recent reproductive success in common loons (Gavia immer). Journal of Avian Biology. 48:1281-1286.

4. Piper, W.H., Brunk, K. M., Meyer, M. W. and Flory, J. A. 2017. The long shadow of senescence: age impacts survival and territory defense in loons. Journal of Avian Biology 48:1062-1070. doi:10.1111/jav.01393

5. Jukkala, G. and Piper, W. H. 2015. Common loon parents defend chicks according to both value and vulnerability. Journal of Avian Biology 46: 1-8.

6. Piper, W. H., Mager, J. N., Walcott, C., Furey, L., Banfield, N., Reinke, A., Spilker, F. and Flory, J. A. 2015. Territory settlement in common loons: no footholds but age and assessment are important. Animal Behaviour 104: 155-163.

7. Piper, W. H., Palmer, M. W., Banfield, N., Meyer, M. W. 2013. Can settlement in natal-like habitat explain maladaptive habitat selection? Proc. Royal Soc. B. 280: 20130979.

8. Piper, W. H. Grear, J. S. and Meyer, M. W. 2012. Juvenile survival in common loons: Effects of natal lake size and pH. J. Avian Biol. 43: 280-288.

9. Piper, W. 2011. Making habitat selection more “familiar”: a review. Behavioral Ecol. Sociobiol. 65:1329 1351.

10. Grear, J. S., Meyer, M. W., Cooley Jr., J. H., Kuhn, A., Piper, W. H., Mitro, M. G., Vogel, H. S., Taylor, K. M., Kenow, K. P., Craig, S. M., Nacci, D. E. 2009. Population growth and demography of common loons in the northern United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 1108-1115.

11. Piper, W. H., Walcott, C. Mager, J. N. & Spilker, F. 2008. Fatal battles in common loons: a preliminary analysis. Animal Behaviour 75: 1109-1115.

12. Piper, W. H., Walcott, C. Mager, J. N. & Spilker, F. 2008. Nestsite selection by male loons leads to sex biased site familiarity. Journal of Animal Ecology 77: 205-210.

Wpiperloon (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(Sorry that I am confused by your four tildes!)

Yes they certainly are of value. If you want to get stuck into it, I am a bit busy but I am sure a few of us bird editors (@MeegsC:) will keep an eye and assist with formatting references etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)