Talk:Camouflage/GA1

GA Review

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

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)