Talk:Animal navigation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do this review; fascinating topic. I'll start with a close readthrough of the article's text in the next day or two, noting here any initial issues I can't easily resolve myself; then we'll go through the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

This looks solid on first pass. It appears to cover the subject well (I'll do some Googling later to see if there's anything obvious that still should be included), is well-written, and explains various mechanisms concisely and clearly. A few minor points below:

• I agree with the previous commenter that the subheading "history" would be better titled "study of animal navigation" or "history as a field of study" or something similar. "History" alone implies something more like an evolutionary history of the behavior over millennia. You might also add a word like "early"-- it's clear this section doesn't take into account comparatively recent work, which is mostly discussed later. Done.
• "how he believed animals " -- is the he Murphy or Darwin? Murphy. Done.
• "began his classic book " -- "classic" is a small bit of editorial voice; you could provide a source, but it's probably easier just to cut it. Done.
• "An ingenious experiment " -- another bit of editorial voice, especially given that the only source for "ingenious" is Lockley. I'd suggest just cutting it, but if there are secondary sources praising this experiment, perhaps one of them can be work in here somehow Done.
• "In a classic experiment," -- this article is quite full of praise for Lockley! These experiments do sound brilliant, but I think the phrasing is still out of place. Done.
• "not clear how it works" -- "it" doesn't have a clear antecedent here--does it mean pigeon navigation generally or the olfactory component specifically? Done.
• " prescient On the Origins of Certain Instincts" -- another moment where the praise-adjective could probably be cut. Done.
• Is whale migration considered an important enough navigation to be worth mentioning in this article? It may also be worth mentioning the effects of noise pollution on echolocation in the human impact section. (see not-very-scientific source here: [1]) -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC) --- Whale#Naval sonar largely discounts the effect of sonar on whales, so I'd be inclined not to mention that here. There is plenty in the lit. about whale sonar, but JSTOR reveals little about actual navigation. I suspect that experiments on the brains of wild whales may be a little difficult... the best I found was 'magnetic navigation an attractive possibility'. Suggest we don't worry about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC) OK.

• "Path integration adds the distance, direction vectors travelled from a start point to estimate current position, and so the path back to the start." should this be "distance and direction vectors travelled"? My brain's having a little difficulty processing this sentence for some reason. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Done.

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Great images--that's a lovely picture you took of the Manx Shearwaters.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass--nice work.