Talk:Magnetoreception/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mover of molehills (talk · contribs) 13:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This article looks very interesting - I look foward to starting the review! Mover of molehills (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll organize the review by the GA criteria:

Well-written

Lede

• The punctuation in the second sentence is a little bit strange - I don't think that em dash is coming in at the right place. I would rephrase it as "A great variety of animals have this sense, including arthropods, molluscs, fish, birds, mammals, although it is absent in humans." I left out "reptiles" and "amphibians" from this list because it makes the sentence a little bit less of a run-on and these animals are discussed later in the article - let me know if you think this is a bad idea. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I've repunctuated it using parentheses; there seems no reason to mention some orders but not others.

• I would add another sentence after the second sentence briefly describing how some bacteria can orient their bodies to magnetic fields as well - I think this is really interesting! Mover of molehills (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Magnetobacteria do not sense magnetism, they just contain lumps of magnetite, so they are not magnetoreceptive.
    • I understand that this isn't true magnetoreception, I just thought it is worth mentioning it in the lede because you mention it in the article. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Not sure about this, as it's basically off-topic and not lead material, but added for now.
• Suggested rephrasing: replace "and perhaps as a way of forming regional maps" with "and it may even help them to form regional maps." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.
    • Thank you! It look like there are still a few words missing, though - when you say "may help them to form regional maps" instead of "it may even help them to form regional maps," the subject of the sentence is "animals," not "magnetoreception," which makes it confusing. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Tweaked. Not keen on 'even' as that implies it's something extreme.

Just so you know, I'm going to jump down to the other sections so that we can work on the lede at the end when the content of the article is solidifed. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Lede: Round 2

I'm going to add the comments I didn't get to earlier here, and then the "Well-written" section should be ready to pass. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• In the first section of the article, I don't know if it makes sense to mention what magnetoreception is for - I think that the first sentence should just define what it is. As a result, I would suggest it being rephrased as follows: "Magnetoreception (also magnetoception) is a sense which allows some organisms to perceive the Earth's magnetic field." Then, you can go into the purposes later (as you already do). Mover of molehills (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• Now that I've read the rest of the article, and understand a little bit more about what magnetoreception is, I see how it might make sense to leave the part about the bacteria out in the lede. Sorry for the back-and-forth revisions! Mover of molehills (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks!

• For some reason, I still see it there - am I looking at an old revision? Mover of molehills (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Gone.

• I would change the forth sentence to "This sense is mainly used for orientation and navigation, but it may help some animals to form regional maps" - I feel like this avoids an unnecessary semicolon. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• Do you think that you need the second sentence ("This may enable it to perceive a compass direction and latitude")? I feel like you talk about this purposes later on in the same paragraph - it makes sense to define what magnetoreception is, say which animals have it, and then say what those animals use it for. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Removed.

• The phrase "which supports the radical pair mechanism, a quantum effect" needs some work - it's not very clear right now. I would suggest saying "which suggests that they use the quantum radical pair mechanism to perceive magnetic fields." Mover of molehills (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited, there's already a "suggests" a bit earlier in the sentence.

• Last sentence of the first paragraph: say "this effect" instead of just "this." Mover of molehills (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• @Chiswick Chap: I think that this is the final revision which requires a change from you! You have done a great job of cleaning up the prose throughout the article, and broadening some of the scope as well. The last thing I need to do is to check through all the references for verifiability, which shouldn't require anything on your part unless I find any issues. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• • I think we're well past the level of detail of the GA criteria now. If you find any more minor issues of punctuation, word choice, or sentence ordering, please feel free just to go ahead and fix them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

    Thank you! Mover of molehills (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed mechanisms

• Rewording: replace "For animals the mechanism for magnetoreception is still under investigation" with "In animals, the mechanism for magnetoreception is still under investigation." Mover of molehills (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• The picture showing the activity of cryptochromes is a great addition, but it is significantly too large right now. Could you shrink it or even move it to the side of the text? Mover of molehills (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Reduced; the labels will become unreadable if we go too small. Its size depends on each user's image thumb size setting, which is user-configurable.

• Second sentence: it would be good to give some context for the strength of the Earth's magnetic field. Rephrasing: "Because the Earth's magnetic field is so weak (0.5 Gauss), the radical pair mechanism is the only possible way that it could cause chemical changes." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Added that it is much too small to affect ordinary chemical reactions, which is the key point. I don't think providing more numbers here will help the typical reader.

• Thank you, this new revision looks great! Mover of molehills (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• The sentence beginning "Cryptochrome, a flavoprotein..." is a bit awkward right now, since it starts with the same word as the last sentence and has a few too many clauses. I would replace it with "This molecule, a flavoprotein found in the rod cells of the retina in the eyes of birds and some other species, is the only protein known to produce photoinduced radical pairs in animals." Mover of molehills (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited and split the sentence.

• Nitpick on last sentence of first paragraph: replace "is diverse across species, however the mechanism..." with "varies for different species, but the mechanism" Mover of molehills (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited.

• I would recommend combining the last two sentences of the first paragraph in the "Cryptochromes" section into one. Example: "Because the Earth's magnetic field is so weak (0.5 Gauss), the radical pair mechanism is the only plausible way that it could cause chemical changes." I know this undoes your earlier edit, but I think that the sentence is better in one (condensed) part. Mover of molehills (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Hm. Done.

• The second and third sentences of the second paragraph should also probably be combined. I would say "In 2000, scientists proposed that cryptochrome - a flavoprotin found in the rod cells in the eyes of birds - was the "magnetic molecule" behind this effect." Mover of molehills (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• There should be a comma between "chromophore" and "which." Mover of molehills (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Added.

• The first sentence of the third paragraph is confusing. Could you change this too "A good deal of evidence points to cryptochrome and radical pairs as the mechanisms behind magnetoreception"? Mover of molehills (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited.

• I appreciate the change - it still comes off as a bit awkward right now, though. Is there any chance you could say "a large body of evidence" instead of "much evidence of different types"? Mover of molehills (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• It's the different lines of evidence, not the quantity, that are most convincing. Edited.

• Either way, the new version you have looks good. Mover of molehills (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I almost feel like it would be useful to break the pieces of evidence for cryptochrome into a bulleted list - right now, the paragraph feels a little bit blocky. Could you try doing that? Mover of molehills (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done, but I do not support "trying" with the implication of back-and-forth changes.

• The use of the phrase "selected for" is a bit confusing - I would just say "This findings together suggest that the Cry4a of migratory birds helps them to sense magnetic fields." Mover of molehills (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • You're unwittingly trying to make the account purely an account of mechanism, but natural selection is how the mechanism came about. Tinbergen's four questions illustrate how a biological feature needs to be understood.

• That sounds fair. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• At the beginning of the second-to-last paragraph, could you change ",too, are suggestive" to "support this theory as well"? Mover of molehills (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited.

• This part still feels a little bit awkward to me - the "too" in the middle of the sentence makes it feel pretty clunky. Could we rephrase this to "Behavioral experiments on birds support this theory as well"? (Note "this theory" instead of "the theory"). Mover of molehills (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: just a heads-up that this comment is still active - I think it's the last one that is. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Mover of molehills: Edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Why is the word "Zugunruhe" here? What language is it in, and is it necessary? Mover of molehills (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • It's the term of art in this field. The pioneering ethologists were German, but the word is now widely used in English textbooks.

• Got it, I appreciate the clarification. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the last paragraph say "In 2007" instead of "From 2007"? Mover of molehills (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "In" means "in that exact year"; "from" means "starting from that year"; Mouritsen spent many years scratching his head over the odd initial results. Added "onwards" for clarity.

Extended content

Could I ask that you provide a complete set of proposed textual emendations in one pass, as the Easter break is rapidly approaching. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC) I will do my best, although there is still a good deal of article left to go. If we don't finish before your break, I'm happy to shelve the GA until you come back - I won't give you a time limit or anything like that. So far, I've really appreciated all of your improvements! Mover of molehills (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC) So be it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• The line "Iron based systems, if proven" is kind of confusing - how do you "prove" a system? I would change it to something like "if discovered" or just take the clause out. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Removed, the next sentence's "unknown" says it all.

• Also, since you make it seem like cryptochrome is the most likely candidate right now, it would be good to mention the properties that the iron-based theory does not account for. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The cryptochrome discussion states directly which bits of evidence specifically imply chryptochrome, so we'd just be repeating that, in the inverse.

• Fair enough. Mover of molehills (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• By the way, I just noticed - shouldn't the title of the first subsection be "Cryptochrome" instead of "Cryptochromes"? We don't usually talk about a protein in the plural form. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • OK, let's risk it. There is no proof that only one chryptochrome is involved, i.e. that cry4a is the whole story.

• In the subsection "Electromagnetic induction," why do you say "Should be able to"? Is it really unsure, or can you just say "are able to"?
  • I've said "have been predicted". Also added another citation, which weakly suggests that sharks actually have a magnetoceptor as well as electroceptors, but the jury's still out; they can definitely detect magnetic fields.

• In the equation for induction, could you define your variables ($\phi$ and $t$)?
  • Added.

• Thanks! I think there might still be a typo, though - shouldn't there be an "and" between "t" and "varying"? If not, I don't think it's correct to say that the time "varies" the magnetic flux as a verb. Mover of molehills (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Punctuated.

• When you say that induction has not been "observed or tested" in not-aquatic animals, do you mean that scientists haven't even looked for it yet? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes.

• In that case, it might be better to say "is not known to". Mover of molehills (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Edited.

• The last paragraph of the section "Passive alignment in bacteria" could use one more sentence describing what symbiosis with magnetotactic bacteria would look like, probably referencing the article you already cite. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Added.

Issues

• The title of this section is a little bit strange. Could you replace it with something like "unanswered questions"? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• The sentence "Magnetic senses too may be of different kinds" is awkward and not well-phrased. I would replace it with something like "In addition, it is possible that magnetic senses may be different for different species." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

Taxonomic range

• In the "mollusks" subsubsection, you don't give enough context to the experiment involving a Y-maze (or even defined what a Y-maze is). These sentences could use some expansion, starting with a lead-in such as "In one experiment, researchers used a Y-maze to..." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited.

• I think this one could use one more pass - it still wouldn't make sense to a reader who doesn't know what a Y-maze is. I think it would be best to start with "In one experiment, researchers used a Y-maze" or "In a DATE experiment, researchers used a Y-maze" and then go from there. Mover of molehills (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Done.

• Thank you! Mover of molehills (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• The sentence "Tochuina's... neurons" and the one after it should probably be combined. I would recommend "Tochuina's nervous system is composed of individually identifiable neurons, six of which respond to changes in magnetic field by increasing their electrical activity." Mover of molehills (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• In the part about the Brazilian stingless bee, do you happen to know what mechanism is used in the hairs (iron, cryptochrome, etc.)? Mover of molehills (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No; but the antennae are paramagnetic. So it's pretty vague.

• In the "insects" section, I would change "In a choice test..." to "In one choice test,..." (note the comma) to make it more grammatically correct. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• Could you wikilink the phrase "bony fish"? Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• In the sentence about stingless bees, I would add "also" between "is" and "able" - this makes the sentence feel less fragmented. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited.

• The structure that you added looks good - I would just recommend that you put "In particular," at the beginning of the sentence instead of sandwiching it in the middle without a comma. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Done, I suspect that is an Am/Brit thing.

• In the section on fish, the phrase "have a compass sense, demonstrated by changing the axis of a magnetic field around a tank of young fish" isn't very clear. I would rewrite this, potentially expanding to two sentences, and saying a little bit more about the design and results of the experiment you are referencing. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• "red-spotted newts" needs to be capitalized. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• The line "this behavior is disrupted if the magnetic field is experimentally altered" could use some analysis - something like "...indicating that the salamanders are using magnetoreception to navigate." Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited.

• This is a bit of a nitpick, but the phrase "some of the earliest" is repeated in the amphibians and reptiles sections... would it be possible to change it to just "the earliest" the second time to increase variation? Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited.

• In the section about pigeons, it would be good to say that pigeons can detect magnetic fields "as weak as" 1.86 Gauss to make it clear that they can detect stronger fields as well. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• It would be good to wikilink "Macrophages" in the second paragraph of the section about birds. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Linked.

• This is a very small edit, but I think "As a result" sounds better than "Therefore" in the sentence about the trigeminal system being debated - you're not making an argument. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• The sentence "Exposure to magnetic fields leads to an increase in neural activity within the superior colliculus as measured by immediate early gene expression" could use a rephrase. I would say "Instead, scientists have found that exposure to magnetic fields leads to an increase in activity within the superior colliculus section of the brain." Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited, preserving mention of gene expression.

• In the last sentence of the third paragraph of the "mammals" section, there should be a comma between "field" and "the greater." Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• In the next paragraph, I would say "Bats may also use" instead of just "Bats may use." This helps build continuity between different paragraphs. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No, we haven't mentioned bats until this point.

• For clarity, could you just say "big brown bats" instead of the scientific name? Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• In the sentence about red foxes, I would change "When foxes perform their high jumps... they tend to jump" with "When foxes jump... they tend to move." Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• There are two parts in this final section that use quotes (it's not clear where they come from): "tightly clustered" and "are not believed to have a magnetic sense." In both cases, I would recommend just paraphrasing if the current version really is identical to the reference - otherwise, you can just take the quotes off. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• Great! I have gotten to the bottom of the article. I want to circle back and finish some of my earlier suggestions on the lede, and I may have a few more comments to make in the "Broad" section - after that, though, the article should be ready to pass. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Noted.

Verifiable

The rest of my comments for the article should all be in this section:

• The sentence linked to reference 9 is just a little bit too close to the source text "The radical pair mechanism is currently the only plausible way in which weak magnetic fields can affect chemical reactivity". I would paraphrase it a little bit more by changing "the only plausible way" to "the most likely way" or something like that. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Reworded.

• The third bullet point in the list of evidence for cryptochrome points to ref 9, but this reference does not appear to talk about CCry4a at all (at least according to the search function at my computer). Is it possible that you linked the wrong article, or am I missing something? Mover of molehills (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed ref - yes, it's Hore Mouritsen 2022 that provides the overview.
• It seems like the reference 12 might not support the paragraph at the end of the "Cryptochrome" section. This article does not mention any experiment involving a flickering light (as far as I can tell), and it does not mention the impacts of anaesthesia either. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Mover of molehills: Yes it does, e.g. "The same was true in the constant geomagnetic field under flickering 502 nm turquoise or 565 nm green light that was 300 ms on and 700 ms off every second (Li T 300/700 Mag and Li G 300/700 Mag; figure 2c,d)." and "In order to identify the receptor mechanisms providing the magnetic directions, we also tested the robins with their upper beak anaesthetized by gently rubbing a cotton bud soaked in Xylocaine 2% (Astra Zeneca, Wedel, Germany: active substance: lidocaine hydrochloride)."

• Got it, thank you. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• • @Mover of molehills: The Scientific American article is here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you! Mover of molehills (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• In the part of the text referenced by Source 19, the sentence "they seem to be somewhere in the upper beak, and to be innervated by the trigeminal nerve" is too close to the source material found in the abstract of the cited article. Try to paraphrase with something like "they are believed to be located in the upper beak, and supplied with blood by the trigeminal nerve." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited.
• Neither reference 21 nor reference 22 has any hits for keywords of "induction" or "electric induction." As a result, you may need another citation to back this up in the text. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 23 does, however, so I've repeated it there.
• The phrase "compute coordinate maps with a resolution of a few kilometers or better" is too similar to the source's "compute map coordinates with a resolution of a few kilometers (or, quite possible, much better)." I would rephrase it to something like "determine where they are on the Earth within an accuracy of a few kilometers." Mover of molehills (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.
• Just noticed: the sentence that comes before this one, "For a detailed... surrounding magnetic field" is almost completely redundant with what comes before it. Mover of molehills (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Cut.

More

• One more wording edit that I hadn't noticed earlier: the sentence at the beginning of the "taxonomic range" section is pretty confusing. I would make it a more straightforward list by saying something like "Magnetoreception is widely-distributed taxonomically, being present in arthropods, mollusks, and in vertebrates such as fish, amphibians, birds, reptiles and mammals." Mover of molehills (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No, that implies we know it's not in all the other taxa, which we exactly don't. We've so far looked under a couple of streetlights, and found something, but the rest of the street is totally dark. I've reworded it to make this clear. It may help to know that most zoology research is on a small number of model organisms, generally species easy to keep in the laboratory. Generalising from there has its risks.
• When you say "experiments by different scientists have identified multiple effects," what effects to you mean? Could you be specific about this? (Otherwise, I'm not quite sure what to verify). Mover of molehills (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The effects are listed immediately after the comma in that same sentence.
• Could you point me to where it says that there are 6 neurons that respond to changes in magnetic field in Tochuina in source 34? I couldn't find evidence in the text. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Rewritten the sentence; 4 neurons are stimulated, 2 inhibited.
• Just so you know, the references for sources 36 and 37 do not work. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • #36 DOI works fine, removed the URL.
  • #37 is surprising. The citation is correct but the DOI is indeed broken, a (new) fault at the journal's own website. I've added a URL to another site that works.
• The phrase "well-documented in insects including honeybees, ants and termites" is very close to the original source. I would suggest changing it to "is known to exist in honeybees, ants and termites." Mover of molehills (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited.
• Same goes for the sentence "In ants and bees, this is used to orient and navigate in areas around their nests and within their migratory paths." This needs a significant rephrase. Mover of molehills (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited.
• Neither of the sources 39 and 40 seem to support the idea that the bee can distinguish differences in "altitude, location and directionality" - in particular, neither of them even mentions "altitude." Am I missing something? Mover of molehills (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Altitude is a typo for Latitude: there is no way to compute altitude from a compass heading and dip. I've cut the whole phrase, no need to repeat the basics in each section.
• I also don't see evidence in the sources for the claim that shifts in water temperature "indicate environmental deterioration" (which should be indicating, by the way). Mover of molehills (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Cut the phrase, it's not needed here.

• In the "birds" section, the sentence "Subsequent studies... neurons" is too close to the source. I would change it the last part to "were actually macrophages from the bird's immune system, and were not involved in sensing magnetic fields." Mover of molehills (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited.
• Reference 66 is used to support the claim "woodmice use magnetic fields to orient themselves when no other cues are available" - but it is actually about Zambian mole-rats, not woodmice. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Repositioned the ref.
• Reference 70 does not seem to talk about bats at all, it might be a mistake. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Replaced the ref.
• In the part about humans, the phrase "light-dependent magnetosensitivity" is taken directly from the source. Could you say "can display magnetosensitivity when exposed to light" instead? Mover of molehills (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Edited.
• And that's all! After you respond to these comments, the article will be ready to be promoted. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Mover of molehills: All done, then. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Broad

• This might be a little bit subjective, but I feel like it would be useful to include a short section called "earth's magnetic field" before the "Proposed mechanisms" section which explains a little bit about the nature of the magnetic field (how it is produced, its strength, etc.) I think that this would be really useful for readers who don't have this background knowledge, and it makes the overall scope of the article more exhaustive. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Added.

• What you have is helpful, but not quite what I was talking about. In particular, I don't think you need to define what a "sense" is - most readers will know this already. Instead, it would be good to talk about Earth's magnetic field, its strength and direction, and how it is created - really, you could just pull the content from the appropriate article. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've added a further brief mention, but the description given and the wikilink should be more than enough: the full article is only one click away. Apart from anything else, every reader has an idea what a magnetic compass needle does. Describing the creation of the earth's magnetic field is definitely straying off-topic for an evolutionary biology article. The article already states the field strength, and as I said already, any numbers there will already be over the reader's head, all they need to know for this purpose is that it is very weak.

• Either way, I don't think that the description of what a "sense" is is necessary. If you don't want to include more depth about the magnetic field, I guess that you would just leave this section out. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• OK, I've cut it.

• The radical pair mechanism is something that many readers are unlikely to be familiar with, so you could definitely use a brief explanation of what it is (beyond just wikilinking to the article). I would suggest a short paragraph at the beginning of the "Cryptochromes" subsection which summarizes how this effect works and what it does. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • A bit like explaining how the cat is alive and dead at once... I've given it a go.

• What you have looks good. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Important: after doing a little bit of research online, I have found that magnetoreception has been observed in plants as well - here is an article giving evidence of this, and here is a more recent one.. I would recommend adding an "In other organisms" subsection to the "Taxonomic range" section which describes this sense in both bacteria and plants. Mover of molehills (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• On plants: the evidence is pretty flaky - the effects are diverse, the mechanisms unidentified, the sceptics active. I've added a brief mention.
• The section 'Passive alignment in bacteria' explains why they are not actually magnetoreceptive.

• The article could really use a "history" section which describes how magnetoreception was discovered, and which scientists helped it go from being a crazy-seeming hypothesis to a widely accepted theory. I would suggest putting this right after the lede.
  • All right, done. The article actually already said most of it, but there we are.

• I understand, but I do appreciate having it all in one place now. I just have a few edits on wording:

• The use of "might not have" comes across as a little bit informal to me - the kind of thing someone would say in conversation. Could you just say "might have"?

• Done.

• Could you switch the order of the clauses "Evidence for this" and "Until late in the 20th century"? ("Until late in the 20th century, evidence for this...") Mover of molehills (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Done.

• Thank you, looks like there is still one small typo: at the end of the first line, "Evidence" is accidentally capitalized. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Fixed. GA reviewers can make such minor changes themselves.

• Also, at the end of the "history" section, I would recommend saying "Research took a different direction in 2000, however," instead of "Research however took a different direction in 2000". Mover of molehills (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Done.

• Is there a page that you could WikiLink to the phrase "inclination (dip)"? Mover of molehills (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Linked.

• The rest of this paragraph is great, very well-written! Mover of molehills (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks!

• I just noticed that there is one other mechanism which has been talked about in scientific articles about magnetoreception "ion cyclotron resonance." (here is a link to an article describing it). Is this different from the mechanisms that you have already talked about, and if so could you include a subsection on it in the article? Mover of molehills (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, I think it's non-biologists speculating about the matter, and it's more than likely that they have in fact been answered by the radical pair discoveries. I've had a quick nose about, and looked at the article you name, and am not persuaded there's anything to say about it in a biology article. I hesitate to call it fringe, but it's certainly getting a bit tatty around the edges. If you're concerned about it, recall that the GA criteria call for "the main points" to be covered, which they certainly are. Let's leave it out for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Okay. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

• Automatic pass, since this isn't really an issue for a natural sciences article! Mover of molehills (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Stable

• Looks good to me on this front! Mover of molehills (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Illustrated

• I notice that you recently changed the lede picture of the European robin so that it would embody "migration" a little bit better. I have to say that I kind of preferred the old one, though, because the robin had its head cocked quizically as if it was perceiving a magnetic field. Do you mind changing it back, or do you have any other ideas? Mover of molehills (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The reason is that a static bird doesn't look remotely about to migrate or navigate, so the appearance of flight is certainly an improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• I understand - the new picture is pretty solid. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just to make sure that there is a picture for every field of view in the article, I would recommend adding a picture of a brown bat, mole-rat or red fox in the section on mammals. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The big brown bat is already there as the example for Mammals in the taxonomic range tree. Similarly we have an image of the Sockeye salmon for Fishes, where the Chinook salmon is also mentioned; and so on for the other branches of the tree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Okay, but could you include a picture of woodmice or something like that? I just think the last part of the article becomes very text heavy and needs one more visual. Mover of molehills (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Added. Dangerously close to decorative. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• That's fair, but I do think it is visually appealing to browse down the list of animals and see some of them pictured to the right. I like the way it looks now. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Verdict

• Promoted. Thank you for all the work you have done! I know that I am a very detail-oriented and perfectionistic GA reviewer, but I feel like the article has come a long way during the course of our review. I think that this article would be a fantastic candidate for DYK if you are interested, and I hope you keep in on the FA track in the future - I would love to see it on the Main Page one day! It seems like something that more people should know about...

Mover of molehills (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: By the way, I added this to the GA list in the section ecology. Let me know if you think it should go somewhere else. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, these complex articles always belong in multiple categories. If someone gets exercised about its placement I'm sure they'll move it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)