Talk:Countershading/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 03:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting article, I'll give it a look. FunkMonk (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• The images appear to be cluttering a bit, but I think this impression could be prevented if you remove the size forcing of the images. Readers can simply click on an image if they want to see it at larger size. Left aligning some could also prevent clutter. --- done

• This sentence is very long, and could be broken in two: "The reverse of countershading, with the belly pigmented darker than the back, enhances contrast, making animals that can defend themselves, such as skunks, more conspicuous." --- done

• You should be consistent with your use of full stops in image captions. Now you only use it in some. --- done

• This sentence makes it seem as if the article "agrees" with a subjective statement, which it probably shouldn't: "as Peter Forbes writes, "the results were remarkable." --- done

• In the following sentence, could full names, or other kinds of identification, be added, to clarify that these are people, and not for example companies? "Research by Tankus and Yeshurun into "camouflage breaking" --- done

• The two squirrel images seem to be creating a lot of white space. How about arranging them as the two plesiosaur images on the right here?[1] --- done

• Perhaps some images are redundant, especially since you have a gallery. The gallery should probably have a different title, like "examples of countershading in animals" or some such. --- done

• There seems to be inconsistency in the tense used when studies are explained (for example "Rowland (2009) identifies an additional mechanism of countershading"). It should be uniform, and it seems you have used past tense the most. --- done

• Is there any reason for the excessive use of short quotes integrated in the text (for example: Similarly in the sea slug Glaucus atlanticus, "inverted coloration is likewise correlated with inverted habits")? Couldn't these simply be paraphrased or reworded? --- done

• That's it from me, looks good, my main concerns are the image layout and the overuse of short quotes within the text. FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

--- Thanks. All items actioned, hope that looks better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, seems like one issue disappeared in an edit conflict or something, the last sentence under "A related mechanism: counter-illumination" needs a source. FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• That was quick! I think it looks much better now, and will pass it. FunkMonk (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: