Talk:Coincident disruptive coloration/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 00:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

What's up gamers, it's me starsandwhales back at you again with another GA review starsandwhales (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. I'm used to working with reviewers even if there are substantial issues to resolve, and can transform an article quickly if necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

• I'd say this needs to go a lot more depth. In comparison to disruptive eye mask or aggressive mimicry, there is not much information on the history of the research, nor the many examples.

That is mainly because there isn't much out there to report; I wrote those two articles (and brought the second one to GA). There is no "length" criterion at GAN: a short article on a short subject is just as worthy as a long one on a long one, as it were, though I know it feels strange. However, I've added two illustrations, extended the descriptions, and mentioned and described more species that make use of the mechanism.

I didn't mean to make a comparison over length, though it seems that way. I meant that these articles had more information in them that was elaborated on, but in this one (before you split it up into sections) it almost felt like the information was being condensed. But it's a lot better now!

Thanks.

• There could also be more thorough summaries of the two articles that are summarized.

Nine articles are cited and summarised. Also extended the account of the experiments mentioned.

• Example: "The effect is seen also in the common frog, Rana temporaria, in which the dark and light bands that cross the body and hind legs coincide in the resting position, and in several moths[3] such as the oak beauty, Biston strataria, in which the forewing pattern coincides with the pattern on the narrow strip of the hindwing which is visible in the moth's habitual resting position.[4]" is confusing. They should be split up and elaborated on.

Sentence split; more examples and details given. New subsections created to emphasise the variety of subtopics covered.

This is much better now.

• Do you know how to add this to the camouflage template?

Done!

• Is there any more information that you can find regarding coincident disruptive coloration in active camouflage? Maybe how they use it (hiding from predators or hiding from prey)?

I don't believe there's anything quite so specific; octopuses are intelligent and use a wide range of skin patterns dynamically, so an experiment on just this topic would be a fearsome undertaking.

• The back and forth with the quotes makes the "Evidence for natural selection" is kind of confusing. Is there any way to paraphrase the book or separate the quote like earlier and discuss what it means underneath? The summary sentence at the end is good, (Cott's description and in particular his drawings convinced biologists that the markings, and hence the camouflage, must have survival value (rather than occurring by chance); and further, as Cuthill and Székely indicate, that the bodies of animals that have such patterns must indeed have been shaped by natural selection.) to clarify what I mean.

I've read the paragraph through again, and it seems to me to work well. The quotes indicate exactly the researchers' opinion. However, I've split up that sentence for you.

Starsandwhales - I think we're complete here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Everything looks good!