Talk:Species-typical behavior

Animals Low‑importance

Species-typical behavior is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Evolutionary biology Low‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creation

Content produced by User:Neuroeditor and me has been added to this page. We plan to continue modifying the page over the course of at least the next two weeks. Comments and suggestions are welcome.

August H (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--

The second stage of modifications to this page has been completed by User:Neuroeditor and me. We still shall continue to add final modifications over the course of at least the next week. Comments and suggestions, of course, are still welcome!

August H (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review for Neuroscience 100

Comment 1

The information provided was thorough and many examples were given which made the topic easy to understand. The organization of the Neurological Basis section could be improved for better understanding. While the text of the article demonstrates the various brain structures, it would be beneficial to have a list or table explicitly stating the brain structures involved. Using headings to structure the information (by brain structure seems most relevant) would also improve understanding.

I also suggest eliminating some phrases/vocabulary used (Consider..., on the other hand...) Eliminating these will make the style more encyclopedic. In addition, the use of contractions is generally considered informal (see the Wikipedia Manual of Style: contractions). The scientific name of the sea snail discussed in the Neurological Basis section should be italicized and the genus should be capitalized (see the Wikipedia Manual of Style: Animals, plants and other organisms). Overall a very good article that provides detailed, readable information. Emmaskyewilkinson (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions, Emma!

As per your recommendations, I re-structured the Neurological Basis section by inserting three headers to divide it up into discussions about brain structures, about hormones/chemicals, and about instinct versus experience. You were right - this makes it much more readable and engaging. I also fixed my error which you pointed out regarding Aplysia californica.

I retained the slightly more colloquial phrases and vocabulary that was used, because I believe that in the places where they are used, they help to contribute to one of the article's qualities which you like: its readability. I understand that it's not the sort of phraseology that commonly appears in encyclopedias, but I believe that a reader would find it refreshing and that it helps them to engage text that might otherwise sound overly formal and dry.

Lastly, I'm not exactly sure how a list of brain structures would improve the Neurological Basis section. When certain brain structures are mentioned, their role as is relevant is explained in the text, and their status as a brain structure is mentioned. Creating a list that explains their functions or anatomy in any greater detail in a table would, in my estimation, distract the reader from the relevant information, and a list without explanations doesn't seem to me to have any purpose. If I'm misunderstanding your suggestion, please let me know!

August H (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2

I found this article to be extremely informative and very well organized, making it easy to follow. Additionally, you use a solid amount of examples to support your assertions about species-typical behavior. However, that is not to say that there still aren't any potential changes to be made. One area that I think could benefit from some additional clarification is the Erich von Holst example about the chicken's behaviors. When you compare this to the practice of making lesions to identify the roles of structures, I think it is important to note that the data gathered from Holst's experiment is much more subjective than data gathered from examining lesions. Although it slightly weakens your point, it is still an important factor. Aside from that rather small critique, section 1 of your page looks fantastic.

Section 2 also succeeds in many ways, making it very clear what kinds of behaviors are species-typical, and providing a plethora of examples. The way this section is organized makes it particularly easy to, first, grasp the concepts of each species typical behavior, then quickly have a concrete example to reinforce it. One of the only problems that I can see is in the first sentence of the Emotional Species typical behavior section, when you directly address the reader in the 2nd person. Based on the other encyclopedia and scientific articles I have read, using the 2nd person seems very unconventional. I believe correcting this to something along the lines of 'Humans, for example, are able to feel the same sorts of complex emotions that most other humans feel, etc...' All in all, this article is very informative, and offers a very descriptive and widespread set of examples and information to support all points. Nice job! Jcschneider17 (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the suggestions and the compliments - they're much appreciated! I included the caveat of subjectivity in the Holst paragraph, as you suggested, and altered the use of the second-person in section two. August H (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3

You guys did an absolutely fantastic job with this article. I found the topic to be very interesting and the information and research you provided here were more than enough to satisfy any questions. There are a few minor things that I think you can tune up that would polish this article up even more. In the very beginning, I was confused by the sentence "Some of these behaviors are unique to certain species, but they do not have to be in order to fit the definition of ‘species-typical' - they simply have to be characteristic of that species." It was somewhat difficult to understand at first, so perhaps there is a way of rewording it or providing an example for clarity. I was able to read and understand this article fairly easily, but I think that someone with little experience with Neuroscience might have some difficulty at times with some of the more term-heavy language. In no way do you need to rewrite or simplify the article, but I think that occasionally going back to add a sentence for clarity could go a long way. There are also a few minor grammar/structural errors that did not necessarily detract from the article, but would help it if they were smoothed out (there weren't many, the main one being capitalization when talking about the voles, but other than that just try reading the article aloud to yourself). Lastly, I believe that some pictures or visuals would be wonderful here. You could perhaps include visual examples of the brain structures you refer to or of the behaviors that are being described. While I do not think these are necessary, they could definitely help in reinforcing an understanding of the subject.

All in all, really impressive work here guys. My suggestions for improvement are minor, but feel free to use them as you see fit. I think you wrote a great, informative, and mostly understandable article on a topic that could be confusing. Well done! Jyangmidd (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked the article - thank you for the suggestions! I re-worded the sentence in the introduction; hopefully its meaning is now clearer. As per your recommendation, I'm currently searching for images in the commons that might be worth adding. I've also fixed the capitalization error you cited; I gave the piece another read-through to look for the others you alluded to - I'm sure they're there, but I can't find them. Lastly, I went back through the article in an attempt to clarify some of the slightly more dense sections, as you recommended - for example, I provided an explanation of brain lesions that was a bit clearer.

August H (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 4

Wow. This article was extremely well written and so easy to follow. I loved all of the examples used to describe different aspects of species-typical behavior especially what was written in the introduction. I am struggling to find something I would like to suggest to help make the page better. I agree with Jyangmidd that visuals would really help illustrate your examples. Also, I think it would be great if you could incorporate a little information about habituation in the "Instinct and Experience" section. Providing a link is helpful but just one sentence could really make that part even better. This was really a wonderful and fascinating article. Vmanjarrez (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see that you enjoyed the article! As mentioned above, I'm still looking for quality images to make use of. I have also provided a more substantial explanation of habituation, as you suggested.

August H (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional

I placed some relevant tags at this section: it is currently unreferenced and its tone could also be improved (i.e. avoiding addressing the reader directly using the second person, also the essay-style 30k carpet example)... Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 02:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]