Talk:Deimatic behaviour/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 09:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This topic interests me so I propose to review this article. I will make a few initial comments and will review the article in greater detail in a few days time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

Are the terms deimatic or aposematic mutually exclusive or can an animal exhibit both behaviours, with aposematic behaviour being considered a form of deimatic behaviour?

Ah, very good question. At first sight they look mutually exclusive, bluff versus warning of actual harm. However, there are shades of grey; a not-very-dangerous prey may give a display and may be able to defend itself a little. Ratcliffe and Fullard explain that a defensive action - making clicks - by arctiid moths could be aposematic, could startle the (bat) predator, could jam the bat's echolocation or could interfere with the bat's information processing; they suggest the signals in fact both disrupt echolocation and warn of chemical defence. So in general aposematic behaviour is not a form of deimatic behaviour or vice versa, but prey animals are under evolutionary pressure to defend themselves by all means possible, and that can mean overlapping and confusing cases. I'll beef up the discussion a bit to say some of this.

That's clearer now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mantidae needs to be capitalised.

Done.

Where you mention people like Blest, it is desirable to give a full name and descriptor (eg. English zoologist) where possible,

Done.

From what you say about arachnids, it seems threat displays are included under the term deimatic behaviour. The lead suggests the term is restricted to startling coloration or markings such as eyespots. Which is correct?

See above. The lead says "such as suddenly displaying .. eyespots", which is correct. A threat display is deimatic if it's a bluff; it's a warning (aposematic) if it's for real.

Your Ian Smith reference needs attention.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments

"Deimatic displays are made by insects in groups including the Mantidae (praying mantises) and Phasmatodea (stick insects)." - This sentence could do with being rephrased because it can be read to mean displays by groups of insects!

Done.

"The paper nautilus rapidly changes its appearance by suddenly withdrawing the shining and iridescent web formed by the first pair of arms from covering its shell." - This sentence is a bit convoluted.

Done.

It would be nice to know who Fenton, Licht and Bates are. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

GA criteria

The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
The article is neutral.
The article is stable.
The images are relevant and have suitable captions. They are either in the public domain or are properly licensed.

Final assessment - This article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]