Talk:Disruptive coloration/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. My response will be a little slower than usual. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting, I'll take it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I once read the supercilium would fall under this subject, but not sure. Could deserve a mention, next to "Many species conceal the eye with a stripe that runs through the eye, making it seem just part of a dark area of background."

Done, thank you. I've also linked eyestripe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much of early research consists solely of the old sources, and your explanation of them. I think it would be good to have some secondary sources (sourced commentary) brought in here, if there are any. Per.[1]

I've added a paragraph citing the major review paper by Stevens et al, with quotes and links to the early authors who did NOT think of disruptive coloration. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In continuation of that, you have an early research section, but is there not material about general modern research of the issue? As it reads now, the old observations all appear to be taken as fact.

The early research section is a history, a normal section to have, describing the past, while the modern research is described and cited in the following sections (the whole of the rest of the article). Those sections and citations demonstrate that the later scientists do not take the early research as inevitable truth, but they do broadly agree that Thayer and Cott were on to something. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"are characterized by high-contrast light and dark patches, in a nonrepetitive configuration, that also provide camouflage by disrupting the recognizable shape or orientation of the animal" You quote a source, but then you should also have in text attribution.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image seems to have somewhat iffy sourcing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T-90_main_battle_tank_%282%29.jpg

removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that was pretty quick, considering your disclaimer above! So last two things, perhaps a replacement image could be found for the tank? And is there no more info that could be teased out of the review paper? FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now tired as a dog. If my memory serves, the tank was one of very few on Commons that seemed to show a decent disruptive pattern; do you know of anything that might suit? I think we have the "juice" from the paper, certainly on the early workers, but it's freely readable so suggestions would be welcome. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: I've replaced the tank and done a little tweaking, but otherwise I think we're ready now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. There seems to be a few "buts" under discussion in the 2006 paper, only a few issues, but perhaps it could be incorporated briefly? FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added a brief account of the paper's methodology and findings to show how DP works better than other approaches to camouflage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, I'll pass this now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]