Jump to content

Talk:Pouyannian mimicry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pouyannian mimicry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 22:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun Many thanks as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead's a bit thin; it's basically just the definition and Pouyanne's original observation. I'd add some more details about the details of the phenomenon from In orchids.
    • Added.

"three species, a mimic" Should be a (semi?) colon or something.

    • Edited.
  • I like the graph, great visual representation.
    • Thank you.
  • Do no plants other than orchids show Pouyannian mimicry?
    • Seems not. If it is one day found in other families, it'll likely be chemical and tactile, not visual.
  • "One mechanism" mechanism for what?
    • glossed.
  • "Floral mimicry...mating signals." this bit seems better suited at the start of Definition.
    • Rearranged.
  • "Such plants" Has no referent since previous sentence doesn't mention any specific type of plant.
    • The earlier mention is "Flowering plants that do not produce such rewards".
  • "at the population level" Not quite sure what this means, do you mean "at the level of individual populations" or thereabouts?
    • Yes.
  • "pollinators involve" to "pollinators involves"
    • Done.
  • Any link for sensory trap?
    • Added.
  • Not required for GA ig, but I'd add translated titles for the French articles.
    • Added.
  • What makes South Coast Orchid Society an RS?
    • They are specialists in their field, and very unlikely to be lying about the subject.
  • Refs 1, 3, 6, 11, 12, and 13 look like they have page ranges too long for the claims they're used to cite.
    • Standard practice when citing scientific papers is just to cite the whole article.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed