Talk:Müllerian mimicry/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 11:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this over time. On a quick browse I found the language to be rather teleological and often using verbs of intent that might need to be addressed. More later. Shyamal (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking it on. Briefly, I do not see any problem with teleological language in biology as long as it's obviously about and a shorthand for evolution by natural selection, which it is in the article. Happy to give a longer reply. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly obvious between biologists but can be risky with some audiences (esp. ID folks) especially in the lead - I personally would rather prefer "participate" (in quotes) or even better "...are involved" (without quotes). I think avoiding it where avoidable seems like a better guidance. Your teleology article is nice. Shyamal (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly no need to start those folks running, I agree. Let's play it quietly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think "advergence" is a new word that is not found in standard dictionaries - it was apparently introduced in 1972 and perhaps needs a little more gentle introduction in the lead and a little more expansion in the main body on how it differs from convergence. I do not yet know the difference as I am unable to locate the full text of the 1972 paper. Shyamal (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added a gloss, and it's immediately contrasted with convergence to make the meaning clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...some 65 species participate" - there are 3000 species of mutillids, this is obviously picked out of a specific study with context lost here. "participate" - another example of teleological language. Shyamal (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded it, but "participate" does not imply conscious decision, it just means take part in. See above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption of predation of a fixed "n" may also need to be highlighted.

Added mention and ref.

I think there needs to be a careful link to functional response (Let me know if you want doi:10.4039/entm9745fv).

Seems to fit in quite nicely with the existing mention of inadequacy of step functions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Also Sherratt's idea of Muellerian mimicry in marketing/branding may make for an interesting section). Shyamal (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd seen it and wondered. OK, added a section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The potential bird example may be worth noting as also floral mimicry - let me know if you want doi:10.1016/S1360-1385(99)01445-4 Shyamal (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pitohuis added.

Flowers added. And mammals, now there's a juicy research area.

A bit of history of terminology and classification might be helpful - for instance some earlier classifications did not consider this as mimicry because there was no deceit. It has been called "homotypy", "nondeceitful homotypy" and "arithmetic homotypy". See doi:10.1146/annurev.es.13.110182.001125 - let me know if you need it. Shyamal (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Wickler, Wolfgang (1998). "Mimicry". Encyclopædia Britannica. 24 (15th ed.). pp. 144–151." is a dead link

Removed link. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work on this article. I believe it now passes the GA criteria. And oh, wish you a very happy new year! Shyamal (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:
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:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Many thanks for the review, as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]