Talk:Counter-illumination

Image request

This article needs a photo of the underside of a squid or a shark, shining by its own light, to illustrate the camouflaging effect of counter-illumination. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it does (again). We'd be really grateful for a suitable image, and that means one with a valid CC-By license on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Adaptiv camouflage

I'm not sure that the 2011 BBC piece "Tanks test infrared invisibility cloak" is necessarily a "reliable secondary source" here, hence my addition of {{primary source inline}}. It is an independent source, but that isn't the same thing. According to WP:SECONDARY, a secondary source "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". In other words, it is not simply routine reporting of facts. Apart from the quoted words of "project manager Pader Sjolund", the information in the 2011 BBC piece may as well have been lifted straight from a company press release – there is no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis to be found. I think that this material needs more substantial secondary sources to avoid the kinds of problems that WP:NOTNEWS and especially WP:NOTPROMOTION warn about. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The BBC has an exceptional reputation for careful journalism. However, I have added a further secondary source from Popular Mechanics which discusses both BAES's Adaptiv and the Israeli Eltics prototype; there is no indication that Popular Mechanics has any bias in favour of either company (being neither British nor Israeli), and indeed its articles cover products from all over the world. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The BBC's reputation notwithstanding, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROPORTION are still valid considerations. I think the Popular Mechanics article, coming from a monthly magazine, is a better source for content relating to this technology, but I'm not sure it belongs in this article. Do any published sources explicitly compare this kind of camouflage system to biological counter-illumination? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you are happy with the additional source. Valid considerations are that journalists have only had access to what BAES has been willing to reveal about this secret system, along with what engineers and scientists can readily deduce from the scraps of information and photographs provided. Primary sources are perfectly allowable to support claims such as that company C claims to have built system S with features F, G, and H. In BAES's case, nobody doubts that they did build a prototype as shown in the photographs and video: their reputation would be badly damaged if these were ever found to be less than genuine. As for proportion, coverage of vehicle prototypes forms a small percentage of the article, and there are multiple sources for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It was relevant nonetheless. However, ref 12 (Dann) shows that military counter-illumination prototypes are considered to be forms active camouflage. I'm unsure why we would need a source that compares military counter-illum to biological ones - they're just different instances of the same technique, but I'll have a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• The NSF's Science Nation website has an article on Glowing Squid which says "This successful counter-illumination, anti-predatory strategy could lead to several applications for human benefit.
  Materials science experts in the U.S. Air Force are studying possible improvements in camouflage through the reflective qualities of the squid-bacteria symbiosis." (It looks as if the "reflective" is a mistake by the reporter, given the rest of the article.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

However, all of this belongs in active camouflage, not here. I've removed the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Counter-illumination/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 08:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward to reviewing the article. !

Many thanks for taking this on! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Small comments

• It would be better if we could describe what is meant by "lower surfaces" in the lead.

Said downward-facing. The side facing down.

• Link symbiotic bacteria.

Done.

• Silvering should be described too, as it seems to be a rather unknown term.

Done.

• Fish is overlinked.

Done.

• Would be better to further clarify what is meant by upper surface.

Said "upper side". The side facing up.

• Link emission spectrum.

Done.

• The part where we talk about the squid's wavelength emitted seems to be part of an experiment. If so, we

should mention something like "In an experiment conducted..." before "In cold water at...".

Done.

• We should explain what we mean by "a system of filters".

Done.

• Link bacteriogenic.

Nothing to link it to: the word is immediately glossed, and there bacteria and symbionts are already linked.

• Link glandular organs.

Said "roughly spherical".

• It would be better to mention what is the functionality of colour filters and reflectors.

Both are now glossed with a brief explanation in the text.

• Link crypts and diverticula.

Glossed them, nothing useful to link to (aka, they're illustrated only here).

• Remove duplicate links.

Done.

• "in the mesopelagic, and predation occurs from below." Shiuld be phrased better.

Edited.

• "as does the Hawaiian bobtail squid" Perhaps this should be omitted as the species is mentioned in the next sentence?

Well spotted. Done.

• It might be better to use convert templates for metres.

Done.

• Ships and aircraft are overlinked.

Checked; linked them in the lead as well.

• "Diffused lighting camouflage, in which visible light was projected on" instead, "Diffused lighting camouflage, in which visible light is projected on" as it is a phenomenon.

Done.

• "National Research Council" should be linked.

Done.

• For consistency, you should use either Second World War or World War II.

Second World War it is.

• Link crosswind.

Done.

• Is there a reference to note b?

In the caption in Yehudi lights.

Those are all done so far. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for the indentation earlier. Was editing on phone, and I did not realize that. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Great work! Another excellent article. Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

---

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: