Talk:Animal coloration/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 13:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I will take on this review, this being the sort of article that interests me. The first thing that strikes me is that its title is in American English and I may need to seek input from someone else to check spellings. It is a fairly long article and I shall be reviewing it in detail over the next week or so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

First reading

• You need to use American or British English throughout. The article's name is in American and there is use of both languages in the opening lead paragraph. It is a problem elsewhere in the article too. "Coloration" is both British and American; the whole article is currently in British English, unless I've missed something.
• In the lead section, "startle" is wikilinked to another part of this article. I don't think this is right. Done.
• Some of the images have captions inconsistent with the text. For example, "A camouflaged orange oak leaf butterfly, Kallima inachus (centre) displays "Protective Resemblance"", capitalises protective resemblance and puts it in inverted commas while the text does not. Done.
• "Hugh Bamford Cott's 500-page book Adaptive Coloration in Animals, published in wartime 1940, systematically described the principles of camouflage and mimicry with hundreds of examples, over a hundred illustrations — both photographs and his own accurate and artistic drawings, and 27 pages of references." - I think this sentence could be split in two and the awkward "—" removed. Done.
• "See also Category:Animals that can change color." - I'm not sure that you should include that in the middle of a text section. Done.
• In the Camouflage section, I take it that Edward Bagnall Poulton described the behaviours you mention in succeeding paragraphs but I think you should be a bit more explicit about this. Done.
• In the Signalling section you capitalise your bullet points whereas in the Warning section you do not. Done.
• "Müllerian mimicry, where two or more distasteful or dangerous animal species mutually resemblance each other." - There's an error here. Done.
• "When an edible prey animal comes to resemble, even slightly, a distasteful animal, natural selection favours those individuals that even very slightly better resemble the target. " - I'm not sure you should use the word "target". That implies that the species is pre-destined to evolve in this way. Done.
• "deimatic" - explain or wikilink. Also wikilink Peacock butterfly, Done.

*You have given "deimatic" a red wikilink. If there is no suitable Wikipedia article to wikilink it to, I think you should explain it or remove it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC) --- Done better - started Deimatic behaviour. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• "They also have a little riboflavin in their skin." - You could expand this a little as most people (like me) will not know that riboflavin has a colour. Done.
• The article contains a large number of images, some of which are placed either side of text which is not recommended in the MOS. You could relocate one or two images to immediately below your first fish image as at the moment there is a large area of blank space opposite the Contents box. Done.
• That's all for the moment. Most of the prose is pretty good. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks.

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.	The prose is good. The word "coloration" is used repeatedly which I do not like but I see from my dictionary that this is acceptable in British English.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	It complies with the MOS guidelines. The lead provides a good summary of the contents of the article.
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.	There is currently a lack of consistency in how the authors names of books and journal papers in the reference section are dealt with. I do not believe that this is essential for the GA criteria to be met.
	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).	The article is well referenced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not as far as I am aware.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article sems broad in scope.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article deals well with the subject and remains focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable.
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.	There are plenty of images and they are appropriately licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images illustrate the article well and have good explanatory captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article is well written and laid out and I believe it conforms to the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)