Talk:Inequity aversion in animals/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 20:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks interesting, reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Due to inconclusive evidence it is assumed that some bonobos, baboons, gibbons, and gorillas may be inequity averse. – This reads like a contradiction. Inconclusive evidence means no conclusion, from my understanding.
  • Reworded.
• For instance, if the animals are not side by side – suggest to add "this is the case" in front of the sentence to make the connection to the previous sentence.
  • Done
• Blake et al. – "and colleagues" instead of "et al." may get rid of a difficult technical term.
  • Done
• et al. – This seems to be inconsistent; most of the time, all author names are simply provided.
  • Yes, most of the time there are only a few names to list. But Blake et al. is actually a team of 11 researchers. Should I list them all? For all the other cases I have now provided all names, even when there are 6.
• The conclusions researchers have drawn from these results are therefore also mixed – already stated in first sentence of paragraph
  • Fixed
• Sheskin et al., however, – I don't understand the "however"; this does not appear to relate to the previous sentence at all?
  • Me neither. Not sure why it was there. Removed.
• In cooperative pulling tasks, individuals who are the victim of reward-monopolizing individuals punish this behavior by refusing to cooperate subsequently. – Which species?
  • Capuchins. Done
• In a bar-pulling apparatus with unequal rewards capuchins still achieved success. – I'm not sure how to compare this with the previous sentence.
  • Removed.
• on almost half the trials the pair negotiated to work for the equal division. – What does "negotiate" mean here?
  • I believe the researchers use negotiate in an abstract way. What actually happened is one chimp held a rope end hoping the other would join. As the title of their study is "Chimpanzees coordinate in a negotiation game", I have replaced negotiate with coordinate.
• Brosnan and de Waal drew different conclusions from the Bräuer, Call, and Tomasello study and wrote that bonobos may be inequity averse – Can this be more specific? What did they interpret differently and why?
  • Oddly Brosnan and de Waal do not give any reasoning. They have a table with all experiements, by species, and simply list "Maybe" for the Bräuer, Call, and Tomasello. A bit further on they write "recent evidence indicates that bonobos (23) and several macaque species (Macaca spp.) (18, 31) also respond negatively to getting a reward inferior to that of a partner"
• Rocha, de Carvalho, Tavares, and Tonneau investigated if the timing of the inequity condition relative to the equity condition mattered. – I'm not following here. What is meant with timing, and why does it mean they are not inequity averse?
  • Rephrased
• Gorilla ssp. – "ssp." should not be in italics
  • Removed
• valproic acid – can the effect of this be explained? Why is this used?
  • Done
• The findings of two other studies are also seemingly at odds with the notion that dogs are inequity averse. – Already mentioned in first sentence of paragraph
  • This was indeed confusing. I have reordered the Dogs section, making a better contrast between the two sets of studies.
• and Range1 – Is the "1" intended?
  • Fixed
• Why are sections ordered 1) Crows, 2) parrots, 3) ravens although crows and ravens are very closely related? Why not even combining them into "Covids" as was done with the parrots?
  • Within a section (Primates, Other mamals, Birds), the animals are ordered alphabetically. Because Krasheninnikova, Brucks, Buffenoir, Blanco, Soulet, and von Bayern did their study with four different species of parrots, I grouped them altogether, rather than a section for blue-headed macaws, African grey parrots, etc. I could order everything in a kin-ness order of course, if you think that's necessary.
    • Ah, I didn't even notice that. I would say ordering paragraphs alphabetically is non-standard in Wikipedia and people therefore won't expect it. At least, it is the first time I see such alphabetical ordering here. Grouping according to phylogeny makes more sense to me. It is your call and optional for this GA, though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• in the cooperative cleaner fish.[166]) – Where does the ")" come from?
  • fixed
• This theory predicts – "hypothesis"?
  • Done
• Optional: For example, bluebirds, bats and butterflies all have wings but do not share an ancestor that could fly, and the way their wings are constructed are entirely different.[172] – This seems to go off-topic, an additional explanation that is not really needed.
  • Removed.

• That is everything. Great job with writing in a very digestible way, although I think it needs to be more specific in places. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jens, for taking the time to review the article. I will act upon your comments and suggestions in the next few days. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I believe I have addressed all your comments. Let me know if there is anything else I should do. Thanks, Edwininlondon (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Thank you. All good now, promoting! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)