GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 13:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Hi, I'll review this soon. First thought, the photo of the willow grouse could benefit form being right aligned; now it interferes with the table, which is pushed to the right, unlike the two other tables. Also, it is better for subjects in photos to face the text. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Interesting reasons! Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • When it comes to snow camouflage in animals, you only seem to focus on seasonal camouflage. What about polar bears, snow owls, Arctic wolves, etc? Seems like an oversight.
OK, Added a mention of always-white Arctic animals, and an image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Alright, but the intro should not have unique info, only be a summary of the article body, so there should be elaboration further down. FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
It's all in the Among animals section.
It would seem that having the "White as camouflage" section before "Seasonal polyphenism" would make more sense? It explains what the camouflage is for in general, whereas the seasonal stuff is more specific. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Done.
  • No pre-WW2 examples of snow-camouflage?
There's very little, as it was generally improvised, but I've found brief refs and a nice image from the IWM.
  • The title "Snow camouflage in animals" seems a bit too general, since all the examples shown are only those that change coat.
Seasonal polyphenism it is.
  • Maybe you could elaborate on the different reasons why animals would need snow camouflage. I wouldn't think polar bears or wolves are afraid of other predators, so it must be to aid in hunting?
Done, you agree with Cott!
  • Nice fixes, I'll pass, seems more well-rounded now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Many thanks for the review, and Happy Easter! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply