Talk:Handicap principle/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 23:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I'll bite. You know the drill, will have review out in the next couple of days. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 23:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Images
- Image rights are in order
- Specify in the caption that 'Johnstone's 1997 graphical representation' is a reproduction, not the original graph
- Done.
- Alt text is always great but remains optional
- Added.
- Please add sources to the first and fourth captions, just to be safe.
- Added.
Copy-vios
costly traits used in mate choice by humans should be generally less common and more attractive to the other sex than non-costly traits
word for word, please either quote or reword- Reworded.
- A couple of spot checks finds nothing else exciting
Misc
- External links are good
- Page is stable
- Nominator is majority author.
- WP:SEEALSO, you've got a few repeating links.
- Gone.
Sources
- No concerns about reliability
- Manual review of all provided links show they are still live
- I always recommend archiving (optional)
- Made a couple of spot checks for accuracy, nothing to note
Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Prose
[edit]"honest" or reliable signalling between animals which have an obvious motivation to bluff or deceive each other
So, I see what you're going for here but this doesn't really establish what the Handicap principle is and oversells Zahavi's contribution. Zahavi's theory can be summarized as the handicap theory "predicts that secondary sexual traits are reliable indicators of quality because they are costly and reduce survival." [1]. Which is one aspect that is heavily debated.- Edited.
- Additionally, the first sentence needs to be more direct on what signaling theory actually is. Its technically a broadly defined group of hypotheses if I'm understanding this topic correctly.
- The sentence mentions honest/reliable signalling; that's a central plank of the theory which isn't itself directly mentioned, and needn't be. The nature of the honesty is unpacked at once in the sentence.
- Additionally, the first sentence needs to be more direct on what signaling theory actually is. Its technically a broadly defined group of hypotheses if I'm understanding this topic correctly.
- ' costly signals' MOS:NOBOLD
- It's a major phrase, a plausible search term, and it redirects here, so it's properly bolded.
- Please mention in the first lead paragraph that this is still a controversial hypothesis with limited scientific basis.
- Added.
- 'honest signals' very strange, niche terminology.
- Um, "honest" has its usual English meaning of truthful: a fit gazelle is telling the truth by stotting high into the air, it really is fit, as the lion receiving the signal can plainly see. Whether we're thinking as biologists or not, that seems not at all strange.
However, honest signals are not necessarily costly, undermining the theoretical basis for the handicap principle, which remains unconfirmed by empirical evidence.
a very verbose way of saying that this is based upon mathematical modeling and not observation.- That doesn't explain the reasoning here. The sentence is about the logic of the argument for the handicap principle, which it concisely summarizes. It isn't just that it's theory-based, but that the costliness is not 100% essential to the theory.
- In the origins section, please specify what Zahavi's theory actually was.
- Added.
the way humans invest money to increase income in the same currency
is this an analogy? Please make this clear.- Edited.
This is illustrated in the figures from Johnstone 1997
Be more specific in how this is illustrated. what does Johnstone claim?- Spelt out.
- ' classic handicapped models' make it clear that this is still withing a framework of game theory
- Added.
- 'Further formal game theoretical' What makes them 'formal'?
- Cut, it was just trying to bring the discussion a bit closer to normal English.
- 'conventional signalling ' change to 'cheap talk', maintains consistency with the terminology
- Edited.
- "The theory predicts" What Theory? change to 'The Handicap principle hypothesis predicts..."
- Edited.
American scientist Jared Diamond has proposed...
active voice- It is already. Passive would be "A proposal has been made by JD ..."
Zahavi has invoked the gift-giving potlatch ceremony as a human example of the handicap principle in action.
change to active voice.- Again, it is already in the active voice.
- The connection between "conspicuous consumption" to Potlatch to Handicap Principle is difficult to follow
- Added gloss.
which was considered to have altruistic behaviors
was? Change to 'are'.- Edited.
helping-at-the-nest behavior
what is this?- Added a gloss.
kin selection
also needs to be explained- Added.
it was a puzzle until handicap theory offered an explanation
sentence is a weird shift in tone, this also implies that handicap principle must be the answer.- Reworded.
- 'explanations were possible,' would love to see a little bit more indepth on this (maybe a half sentence's worth) (optional)
- Wikilinked.
This was a rather interesting read, though it took a few days worth of reading up on Game Theory to really understand it all. Thanks for waiting while I slowly go through it, I wanna get this right on the first try (so to speak). This is for the history section, I'll have the rest out over the weekend.
I went ahead and made grammatical fixes and a few edits for clarity's sake. Please review when you can. At this time the page passes GA review, congratulations!!
Good Article review progress box
|
🏵️Etrius ( Us) 05:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.