Talk:Camouflage/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 12:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC) This is a subject that interests me and I will be starting the review in the next few days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

First reading

I have read through the article once, concentrating mainly on the prose. In general it is quite acceptable but I have noted down below a few problems that I noticed. Have a look at the Manual of style. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• History, #3. - This sentence needs clarification. DONE.

• Disruptive patterning, - The first sentence is not good grammar. REWORDED.

• Eliminating shadow, - The first sentence is not well punctuated. Nor am I keen on the use of "perhaps the exception that proves the rule" SENTENCE SPLIT. PHRASE REMOVED.

• Motion camouflage, - The second sentence is not well punctuated. Nor is the last sentence. DONE.

• Crypsis by changing skin pattern, colour, - The first sentence should not end with a preposition. REWORDED.

• Crypsis by countershading, #1. - The second sentence is muddled. You can't really say that "shadow" makes an animal lightest on top! DONE.

• Crypsis by countershading, #1. - In the second sentence, it is unclear who said what. Do you need to mention Peter Forbes? REWORDED. (No need to name Forbes, I think.)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose in general is good and the suggestions I made above have been attended to. Animals like the "Arctic Hare" and the "Peppered Moth" have their initial letters capitalised in the article. Personally I would have used lower case but I think upper case is acceptable if applied uniformly. The "Dorcas gazelle" and the "zebra" in certain captions are therefore differently capitalised. [DONE] The wikilinked "Bioluminescence" and "Counterillumination camouflage" in the captions near the end of the article should not have initial capitals in the middle of a sentence. [DONE]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There is excessive use of duplicate wikilinks in the article. Using the "highlight duplicate links" facility, I find 16 places where a wikilink is repeated. Many of these are in the image captions. [DONE]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There should be uniformity of style with regard to the references. The authors of the scientific papers should be named consistently. For example "Srinivasan, M. V. & Davey, M." is in a different format from "Gullan, PJ and PS Cranston" and "Martin Stevens, William TL Searle, Jenny E Seymour, Kate LA Marshall, Graeme D Ruxton" [DONE]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article is well referenced and sources seem reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not that I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Topic is well covered using both animal and military examples.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This is not a problem.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There are plenty of images and they are very relevant to the subject matter of the article. All seem appropriately licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images have suitable captions, but see above about duplicate wikilinks.
	7. Overall assessment.	All the criteria are now met. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Transparency is not camouflage

The opening sentence defines camouflage aptly: "methods of concealment that allows otherwise visible ... objects to remain unnoticed by blending with their environment"

Transparency is not compatible with this definition. It is not primarily a way of looking like the environment. It is a way of not being visible at all. --Ettrig (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. However, it's very hard (ok, impossible) to say everything about something in one sentence. When a fish is (somewhat) transparent, it does indeed appear to be just the environment (I'd say background, but as the book says, that is far too terrestrial a word) and so tends to remain unnoticed. In a way, too, the goal of camouflage research is exactly to make things invisible: transparency would be the ideal mechanism, were it available. Really, I'm against the idea of a definition in a sentence - such a thing is only ever a brief introduction to give people a quick idea. The whole article is the definition. As for perfect transparency, no fish or plankton attains that. They are always to some extent visible, some extent opaque. I've added "such as" to the first sentence, hope that's clearer. -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Transparency is certainly part of the subject-matter, and should be included. It is treated by Cott (p315) on transparency in fish as breaking up outline (etc), and p405 on lepidopteran wings as part of mimicry with hymenoptera, citing a Poulton paper of 1880 (ref #500 in Cott). Ruxton G.D. Sherratt T.N. and Speed M.P. 2004. Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals & mimicry. (Oxford) have Chapter 4 on transparency and silvering. The listing of transparency is not merely justified, it is necessary to properly reflect the literature. The word 'blending' is satisfactory; the rephrasing as 'not being visible at all' expresses an absolute, which is not appropriate, and not meant by the original. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that, very helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is about whether transparency is included in camouflage. That transparency is treated by Cott is not in itself a valid argument on that issue. Maybe Cott does say transparency is a kind of camouflage. But the discussion above does not give any indication that he does. The same goes for the discussion of the next reference. Could you please try to show that you understand the question and that your references are relevant to this discussion? --Ettrig (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look at Herring, Peter (2002). The Biology of the Deep Ocean. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198549567, pp 190-195, you will see that transparency is indeed a form of camouflage, and a major one (in the world's oceans) at that. Thus we have a reliable and authoritative source for the claim. Journal papers that substantiate this include Hidden in Plain Sight: The Ecology and Physiology of Organismal Transparency, Sönke Johnsen, Biological Bulletin, Vol. 201, No. 3 (Dec., 2001), pp. 301-318, which says "Experimental and theoretical studies in terrestrial,freshwater,and marine ecosystems have shown that transparency is a successful form of camouflage, and that several visual adaptations seem to counter it." You could also look at Crypsis in the Pelagic Environment, Margaret J. McFall-Ngai, American Zoologist, Vol. 30, No. 1 (1990), pp. 175-188, which says "in the homogeneous pelagic aquatic habitats, evolutionary convergence on three main forms of crypsis is evident: (1) transparency; (2) reflection of most, if not all visible wavelengths; and, (3) ventral bioluminescence as counterillumination; thus, to be cryptic most animals in these habitats use one or a combination of these modalities to variously transmit, reflect or mimic environmental light." Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

These references are excellent, and IMO conclusive. Also, I agree that mimicry is a kind of camouflage. Camouflage is not so much not seen, as it is not recognised by a predator for what it is. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the linked article by Johnsen does indeed say in the abstract that transparency is a form of camouflage. --Ettrig (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Some comments / suggestions

Lead

"The term probably comes from" -> "The term camouflage probably comes from" --- done

That info isn't in the rest of the article and shouldn't be just in the lead - maybe move it to the History section or remove it from the article. There should be a link to Wiktionary. --- done

"...what may seem opposite ways" - can that be made more encyclopedic ? maybe just "...several ways". --- done

Is dazzle camouflage or not ? - the article is inconsistent on this. It could be taken out of the lead and reduced to a brief mention in the rest of the aticle. If it is kept the "The prey ..." sentence should be linked to the preceding sentence (semicolon?). --- done, hope that's better. Dazzle was certainly called camouflage in the war, and was certainly 'protective coloration'.

"camouflage schemes to protect ... airfields ... using ... countershading." - how is countershading used to conceal an airfield ? --- done

"fighters" -> "fighter aircraft" --- done

"The rise of radar" -> "The use of radar" --- done

Link to cell site. --- done

"Peacock Flounder (Bothus mancus)" -> "Peacock Flounder" ? --- done

Further trim lead - e.g. rm ref to Finlay. --- done

History

The combination of the Darwin quote and the Poulton pic is rather messy. --- moved down

If Latin names are needed can they be used consistently - e.g. in brackets ? --- hide if possible, if not will use italics and commas

Is it "swallowtail moth" or "swallowtailed moth" (article is inconsistent) ? --- -ed; done

"pupae (chrysalises)" -> "pupae" ? --- done

"Peacock in the Woods" - can we link to the picture ? ---

"specialties" -> "specialities" (British English) --- done

"he was wounded in 1916 helping to set up an observation post" - delete? --- deleted

Dazzle - see previous comment. --- It was called camouflage and was certainly 'protective coloration'.

Mimesis

Moth pic caption should say "mimicing" or have a a fullstop. --- done

"Peppered Moth" -> "peppered moth" ? --- done, thanks for spotting that

"predators (or parasites)" -> "predators and parasites" ? --- done

"heavily armed" -> "heavily-armed" --- It was changed FROM that, MOS was cited.

The section is inconsistent about whether minicry is camouflage or not. --- removed sentence. Whole books could be written on that. For our purposes, mimesis is certainly camouflage.

"mimics truck" -> "mimics a truck" --- done

DexDor (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

--- many thanks, very helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've put some queries as comments in the article text (and may add more as I look at other sections). I've looked at the Thayer photo in the Countershading section several times and can't see the 2nd "bird" - is it just me ? DexDor (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

--- Thanks. Thayer of course didn't want you to see the 2nd bird; he surely went on camouflaging until the photo came out perfect in his view; the point being that countershading plus disruption can render objects indistinguishable from a background. It's a powerful and historic image. On the zebras, the ideal image for motion dazzle would show a lot of zebras moving fast, close together, with a lion right behind them. But that would be subtly favouring the motion dazzle hypothesis; I think the current image is fine for the job, striking but neutral. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Re Birds: Are we sure there's a 2nd bird in the picture? Is he playing a "Emporers new clothes" trick on us? I can see what looks like a bit of wire for one bird, but nothing for another. Back then taking lots of photos until you get what you want would be less easy than it is today.

---- He was a perfectionist; he may have just looked through the camera's viewfinder until everything was just right.

Re zebras: I thought the other pic might be more the sort of view a predator would get (unless lions have binos). DexDor (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

:) I'll have another look at Commons.

we could use this one of a herd

, but it's quite static; think I prefer the existing one, really.

Is it correct to say that "the system of Maskirovka [is] a comprehensive .. method ..." ? I thought it meant something more like "the art/science of military deception" ? (one difference being that any new technique developed would not be covered by the 1st definition, but would be covered by the 2nd). Military deception#Types of deception refers to it as a military doctrine and that looks to me (a non-Russian speaker who's come across the term a few times) more accurate than what the article says (or the uncited info in Wiktionary). The cited doc refers at one point to "maskirovka complex". DexDor (talk)

--- yes, doctrine is right, used that, and of course it includes camouflage as a major component.