Talk:Lek mating/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 12:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• "Leks are commonly formed before or during the breeding season." — This bit should be mentioned in the prose, perhaps as a brief note in "Lekking behaviour".

Actually, the statement adds nothing, so I've removed it and linked 'breeding season' elsewhere in the lead.

• "and the conferring of indirect benefits to males" — females are also benefited by reducing costs, as explained in "Costs and benefits", and it should be mentioned here.

Done.

Taxonomic range

• "The presence of a group name means that some species in that group lek; groups with no lekking members are not shown." — "some" should not be in boldface as it puts undue emphasis on the word. Per MOS:NOBOLD, you can use italics with <em>...</em> instead: some.

Done.

Lekking behaviour

• Link — "great snipe" as it is the first mention, and "manakins".

Done.

• Can it be mentioned why certain males do not return to their mating sites? If there are any notable reasons apart from what we can commonly assume (getting killed, predators in the territory, etc.)?

You are surely right that males can fail to return for any number of reasons, but not sure we can without WP:OR say anything more than "successful".

• "Some species of ant" — Would "Some species of ants" be better, consistent with the previous "In some species of manakins"?

Removed the "s" from manakins.

• "and wait 6–7 weeks for a female to approach." — This got me curious. Would we have data on longest lasting lekking behaviours? And perhaps on the shortest? Either way, I believe that it will be worthwhile to give some idea about how long lekking can last. For instance, I was also left wondering how long would those avian males lek for after reading the second paragraph.

To be honest, I doubt that that would be helpful: these things are seasonal (i.e. within a part of a year), but there is a massive difference between lekking flies and lekking elephant seals.

Costs and benefits

• Unlink — "great snipe" as it should be linked previously.

Done.

• "When under predatory pressure, female marbled reed frogs have been seen consistently to choose leks near their release sites" — Could be tweaked a bit? Perhaps something like → "When under predatory pressure, female marbled reed frogs have consistently chosen leks near their release sites"

Thanks, tweaked.

Female mating preferences

• This is a short section and basically detailing research on female behaviour associated with lekking. — I would suggest shifting it and making it a sub-section of "Lekking behaviour". As of now, the article describes lekking behaviour (of males), then mentions various costs and benefits to both males and females, and then describes female behaviour associated with the process of lekking.

OK, moved.

The lek paradox

• Unlink — "in lekking species constitutes a paradox" as it is already linked with the "main article" template.

Done.

• Link — "fecundity"

Done.

• "M. Zuk" — Since there is no article on the person, their full name should be used.

Done.

Evolution

• "This prediction is difficult to test, but there was a negative correlation found between male aggressiveness and female visitation in the little bustard population." — It is slightly unclear as to what this would imply. Perhaps add a note → "This prediction is difficult to test, but there was a negative correlation found between male aggressiveness and female visitation in the little bustard population, implying..."

Done.

• Unlink — "fitness" in "the unmated males still receive fitness benefits." as it is linked just a section above.

Done.

• "This could work both for the males in within the group as well as any female who visits the lek." — Perhaps → "This could work for both the males within the group as well as any female who visits the lek."?

Thanks, fixed.

References

• Reference 11 — "Animal Behavior" should be in italics.

Done.

• Reference 14 — "PLOS ONE" → "PLOS One".

Done.

• Reference 33 — "Cengage Learning" in "publisher".

Wadsworth seems to be correct for Starr & Taggart?

Chiswick Chap, I found "Cengage Leaning" from Google Books when I googled the text it covered. I missed that the link you provided had "Wadsworth" as the publisher. That should be all good then. I brought a reference back that got lost during edits. All seems well now! — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

External links

• Since it is empty, it should either be removed or a few links should be added to it.

Done.

That should be all for now. It was a fine read and should pass. Thank you for your work! — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Final

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is well-written with intricate details and examples. It was a delight to review this and it meets the criteria. Thank you for all the time and effort you put into this! — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)