Talk:Underwater camouflage/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Thanks for creating this article, Chiswick Chap, a well reading and straightforward analysis of the topic. I think we've met twice before - once at Anatomy, and once for a shorter GA article about performing midget whose name I cannot presently recall. I'll be reviewing this article against the six GA criteria and am happy to discuss anything I raise.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

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.	Only one or two concerns - see below
	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).	All issues addressed
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None identified
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.	An excellent selection of high-quality images related to the text
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

Overall a very well-written article. I have a couple of relatively minor issues identified during the review.

Thank you!

Very occasionally, the phrasing is quite complicated and could be simplified:

• "as the environment is relatively homogeneous (albeit variable depending on the lighting), with light always falling from above, while there is generally no variable background as with terrestrial foliage."

Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• "A familiar example is the transparency of the lens of the vertebrate eye, which is made of the protein crystallin, and the vertebrate cornea which is made of the protein collagen"

Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• "The marine hatchetfish is extremely flattened laterally" - I suggest "on its sides"

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Other comments:

• "Reflection through silvering is widespread or dominant in fish of the open sea, especially those that live in the top 100 metres. Where" - would be useful to define what silvering is

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest remove the hatnote to "Decorator crab" as you refer to more than one animal

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• The Cott (1940) source - its age is not ideal for this article, but it is a widely respected source.

On the descriptive side of zoology, he can't be faulted. Where experimental work has been done, later work obviously takes precedence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I am yet to check for copyright/plagiarism, images + verify sources, which I'll do in the next 2-3 days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Images, copyright - no issues. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Sources (See below)

Sources

I started to check the sources and am identifying some issues, particularly with the 2010 set. I'll need to look through all of them because there are multiple issues: --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Link 2 "For example, the big blue octopus, Octopus cyanea, hunts during the day, and can match itself to the colours and textures of its surroundings, both to avoid predators and to enable it to approach prey. It can perfectly resemble a rock or a coral it is hiding beside. When necessary, in order to scare away a potential predator, it can display markings which resemble eyes" - doesn't seem to be any mention of either the blue ringed octopus or eyes that I can find in the Aaron Sewell source

Replaced ref.

• Source 4 ("Hidden in plain sight") - good
• Source 5 ("Crypsis in the pelagic environment") - can't find the reference to the depths, but I don't have access to the full source.

Source is ok; Herring 2002 also covers it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Source 8 ("The almost invisible...") - good
• Source 10 "Midwater squid" - doesn't support "It is notably used by some species of squid, such as the firefly squid, Watasenia scintillans, and the midwater squid, "

Could add a source here, but simpler just to remove the firefly squid, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Source 11, 12 ("Oceanic bioluminessence...", "Long-wave sensitivity...") - good
• Link 13 - 15 (starting with Cott 1940, pp. 40–43). regarding countershading - good. Is there a need for Cott 1940 with the two modern discussions?

No, they're sufficient, removed Cott link.

• Link 17 "Leaf scorpionfish" - good
• Link 18 "Eight interesting facts" - good
• Link 19, "Rockmover Wrasse" is a dead link.

Replaced ref.

• Link 21 "Sea urchina" - good
• Link 25 - "Cephalopod dynamic camoflauge" - I've repaired the link, and good

Thank you!

• Link 26 "Octopuses" - dead

Replaced ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I will look at the book sources shortly. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Link 29 "Peacock flounder" dead also

Replaced ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your prompt edits and responses, Chiswick Chap. I have no more concerns and have passed the article. It's very high quality and very easy to read. I can see this providing a useful educational tool in the future and hope readers find it the same. Well done, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)