Talk:Coincident disruptive coloration

Coincident disruptive coloration has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 17, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Animals Low‑importance

Coincident disruptive coloration 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

GA Review

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coincident disruptive coloration/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 00:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

What's up gamers, it's me starsandwhales back at you again with another GA review starsandwhales (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for taking this on. I'm used to working with reviewers even if there are substantial issues to resolve, and can transform an article quickly if necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

I'd say this needs to go a lot more depth. In comparison to disruptive eye mask or aggressive mimicry, there is not much information on the history of the research, nor the many examples.

That is mainly because there isn't much out there to report; I wrote those two articles (and brought the second one to GA). There is no "length" criterion at GAN: a short article on a short subject is just as worthy as a long one on a long one, as it were, though I know it feels strange. However, I've added two illustrations, extended the descriptions, and mentioned and described more species that make use of the mechanism.

I didn't mean to make a comparison over length, though it seems that way. I meant that these articles had more information in them that was elaborated on, but in this one (before you split it up into sections) it almost felt like the information was being condensed. But it's a lot better now!

Thanks.

There could also be more thorough summaries of the two articles that are summarized.

Nine articles are cited and summarised. Also extended the account of the experiments mentioned.

Example: "The effect is seen also in the common frog, Rana temporaria, in which the dark and light bands that cross the body and hind legs coincide in the resting position, and in several moths[3] such as the oak beauty, Biston strataria, in which the forewing pattern coincides with the pattern on the narrow strip of the hindwing which is visible in the moth's habitual resting position.[4]" is confusing. They should be split up and elaborated on.

Sentence split; more examples and details given. New subsections created to emphasise the variety of subtopics covered.

This is much better now.

Do you know how to add this to the camouflage template?

Done!

Is there any more information that you can find regarding coincident disruptive coloration in active camouflage? Maybe how they use it (hiding from predators or hiding from prey)?

I don't believe there's anything quite so specific; octopuses are intelligent and use a wide range of skin patterns dynamically, so an experiment on just this topic would be a fearsome undertaking.

The back and forth with the quotes makes the "Evidence for natural selection" is kind of confusing. Is there any way to paraphrase the book or separate the quote like earlier and discuss what it means underneath? The summary sentence at the end is good, (Cott's description and in particular his drawings convinced biologists that the markings, and hence the camouflage, must have survival value (rather than occurring by chance); and further, as Cuthill and Székely indicate, that the bodies of animals that have such patterns must indeed have been shaped by natural selection.) to clarify what I mean.

I've read the paragraph through again, and it seems to me to work well. The quotes indicate exactly the researchers' opinion. However, I've split up that sentence for you.

Starsandwhales - I think we're complete here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree. Everything looks good!

Add topic