Talk:Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 09:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose to take on this review. I will make a start in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Cwmhiraeth. It's appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

First reading

I have read and looked critically at your article and could find little wrong with it. There are however just a few points: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• "The beautifully contrasted black-and-white bards on the flanks of the Wood Duck " - Is this really "bards"? What does it mean?

--- "bars", done

• ... "pure white" of ocean birds such as gulls and terns equally function as camouflage. " - Should this be "functions"?

--- yes, done

• Having called one section - The Making of Species - you go on to call the book " The making of species" in the text.

--- removed

• I think the section heading "Principles of camouflage" is rather strange.

--- replaced heading

• "Rothenberg then discusses the Thayers' account of the wood duck, which Rothenburg calls "our most garishly colored duck", explaining that the Thayers believed they, "trained as artists", had seen what earlier observers had missed, that[29] " - This sentence is rather long and complicated, especially as it continues on into the quote.

--- split it up, hope that's better.

• In your section "Aesthetics and evolution" you do not give dates for books etc. whereas you have in earlier sections.

--- done

• Is the Smithsonian article approving the theory?

--- No, it says that [unsurprisingly, given the tall claims] not all readers were convinced. I've added "sceptically", hope that's clearer.

• " Not all readers were convinced." - Whose comment is this ?

--- An anonymous reviewer from Smithsonian Art Museum.

• Some of the section headings do not seem very appropriate.

--- replaced headings with names of reviewers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's good. I have not reviewed an article on a book before but it seems to me that the article introduces facts in the lead that are not included in the body of the article. I had a look at the article Lemurs of Madagascar (book), which is an FA, and I see it has an Overview section. I think your article could do with something like this including information about the authors and the circumstances of the book's publication. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've drafted an 'Overview' giving a bit of background to Thayer and the scientists working in the area. See what you think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll aim to finish the review tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Criteria

• 1a The article is well written
• 1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines and has been recently improved by the addition of an "Overview" section.
• 2a&b The article is well referenced and has inline citations for all contentious statements.
• 2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
• 3a&b The coverage is broad enough and the article does not include irrelevant material.
• 4 The article is neutral
• 5 The article was created by the nominator in November 2012 and has hardly been edited by anybody else.
• 6 The images are in the public domain having been created over one hundred years ago.
• 7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
• Overall assessment - Pass.

--- Thanks, Cwmhiraeth, it's appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)