Talk:Patterns in nature/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 10:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to sleep now. I'll try to finish up tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• All scientific laws may be considered patterns; this article covers visible patterns only—this is a highly problematic sentence. The phrase "scientific laws" is an inaccurate term used to describe scientific theories. There are no "laws" in science.
  • Done.
• Referring to the article ("this article covers") in the lead is generally poor form, as a hatnote is often used instead.
  • Done.
• The lead (for example the second paragraph) may benefit from additional wikification
  • Done.

History

• Can more be said here about Leonardo Fibonacci and/or Liber Abaci? I realize you go into detail in other sections, but this seems a bit short. I like how you talk about what the Greek philosophers were attempting to explain. Can you go into the motivations for Fibonacci as well?
  • Have addressed this by adding Fibonacci's rabbits, and going straight on to D'Arcy Thompson who saw the connection with phyllotaxis (which F. didn't).
  • Done.
• Fibonacci number and Fibonacci sequence are both linked.
  • Done.
• You've linked a term within Turing's work title, which is not ideal (The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis). Best to leave titles of works alone and explain any terms outside of the title. The reader expects links in titles to link to titles.
  • Done.
• Empedocles gave an evolutionary explanation for the structures of organisms.
  • Two things here: 1) I'm not sure the source cited directly supports this interpretation, and 2) our article on Empedocles refers to the cosmogenic theory not an "evolutionary explanation". In fact, that article says, "It is possible to see this theory as an anticipation of Darwin's theory of natural selection, although Empedocles was not trying to explain evolution" (Everson 2007). Maybe you could take another look at this and make any needed adjustments? Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC) - Have changed to "to an extent anticipated". Done.

Causes

• One alternative to using multiple section headings for small paragraphs is to introduce the subtopics in the first sentence/paragraph (mathematics, physics, natural selection) and then go on to describe them in separate paragraphs. This eliminates the need for the subsections, but guarantees the structure is in place for future expansion making the section headings naturally "emerge" from the text. Just a suggestion for style and readability, nothing actionable. I tend to use subsection headings for larger paragraphs approaching the two paragraph threshold. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC) **(Addressed)

Types of pattern

Bubbles, foam

• No better solution was found until 1993 when Denis Weaire and Robert Phelan proposed the Weaire–Phelan structure; it was adapted for the swimming centre at the 2008 Beijing Olympic games (see illustration).[50]
  • I think house style is to avoid "see illustration" prompts in favor of placing the image near the text. Done.
  • As for the image galleries, with the content that you do have, I think it would work better to have just one image in each section, and an appendix table at the end with all of the images. However, when I look at your previous work (camouflage) I see that this is your preferred style. Personally, I don't know how well this works for the reader. I know there are some editors who prefer it, and others like me, who do not. I find it too busy and distracting, but this may have more to do with my own approach and view based on my unique perception rather than any objective standard. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC) (see note below)

References

• This will not impact the review, but I want to note that your citations are not consistently formatted. Sometimes you write "Page" while in other instances you write "page". Sometimes you use a comma to separate the name of the work, other times you use a period, etc. Choose one consistent format and stick with it. Again, this will not impact the review. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Done.
  • This also includes last and first name of authors which have no consistency. Sometimes the last name appears first other times the first. Again, this has no impact on the review as it isn't part of the GA criteria and I've already passed you on MOS and references. Viriditas (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Done.
    • Still an issue, but like I said, this does not have a bearing on the review. For example, you still aren't consistent with the dates. Does the year of publication come after the author or at the end? Same with notes. Sometimes you have the author name, time, and page number; other times, only the author and page number, etc. Look at notes 12 and 15 for only two examples. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Noted for after this review.

Checklist

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Gratuitous use of headings, images, paragraph breaks, short sentences, etc. (Addressed)

   The phrase "such as" is used 29 times. By itself, the word "such" is used 37 times. "Many" is used 15 times. (Addressed)

   Consistency issues:

   Dashes. The article uses multiple types of dashes (for example a hyphen and an em dash) for the same purpose. Please choose one type and use it consistently. Compare the lead section (one that activates development - for instance of dark patches - and one that inhibits it) with the lead sentence from the "Bubbles, foam" section (A soap bubble forms a sphere, a surface with minimal area — the smallest possible surface area for the volume enclosed) and again, a sentence from the "Spots, stripes" section (Another function is signalling - for instance, a ladybird is less likely to be attacked by predatory birds that hunt by sight). Done.

   Commas. Binomial names are sometimes separated by commas and other times not. My personal style is to place them in parentheses per common convention specified in binomial nomenclature. Using commas might be acceptable as well, if you use them consistently. Done.

   Circa. In this article circa is abbreviated as"ca" without a full stop. Is this typical? I've seen it most commonly used as "c." and sometimes "ca." but never "ca" without a period. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Done.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See "Empedocles" in history section above. (Done.)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broad coverage. Focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable.

6. 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):

   Images and captions OK.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I've made some changes to the lead. Please feel free to change or restore anything I've touched. After a week of changes, I think the article now meets the GA criteria. Beyond the basic criteria already met, I have two concerns: 1) The general readability and thematic thread between sections could be improved, and 2) the impact of the large number of images on the usability of the types section and its "listy" feel takes away from generating interest in the topic. As a reader, I want to learn about the topic, but I find the images distracting me and the thematic thread between sections weak and too list-like. Further, I would like the lead section to hold my hand and walk me through the main points, and for the history section to expound on the major concepts and people involved and show how each stands on the shoulders of giants in an interconnected way. Finally, the types section could be integrated with the images in a series of tables that would heighten readability. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. There's much to work on here in the coming months. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Actions taken

Hi, thanks for undertaking the review. I've edited the first paragraph of lead - felt just as uncomfortable as you with the self-reference, and glad to have the mandate to tidy it up. Have added wiki links to the other paragraphs of the lead.

As for the body, have gone through article, 1) merging short sentences; 2) limiting images to 6 per section; 3) merging short paragraphs; 4) removing subsections.Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful reading, it's hard to notice one's own writing idioms. Have removed a sack of "such as"-es and many "many"-s.

On the image galleries, I've chosen to put the images as close to the relevant text as possible. On highly "visual" topics like Camouflage and Patterns in nature, it feels natural to have quite a few images, and the visual impact is lost if these are all in an appendix. Conversely, there are rather too many to list down the right hand side, which is what we all prefer in most cases. I actually experimented (months ago) with various options, concluding that a small gallery per section was both "quiet" and accessible. I've no ideological attachment to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)