Template:Did you know nominations/Structural coloration
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Structural coloration edit
- ... that blue, turquoise and green peacock tail feathers would be brown, but for microscopic structural coloration?
- Reviewed: Pelecanus schreiberi
Created/expanded by Chiswick Chap (talk). Self nom at 12:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Although this is mentioned in the lead, and alluded to with various historical quotes, I can't see where in the article this fact is actually cited. Also, the American English spelling of the title jars with the British English spelling of "colour" throughout the article; could this be made consistent? Sasata (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Have added refs for peacock's iridescence in lead. "Coloration" is the spelling most often used in England (see talk of Animal coloration for discussion) by native speakers; we find "colouration" odd or quaint, so there's no better spelling to choose, I'm afraid. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I checked the cited Scientific American article, and it does not have the word "brown" in it, and I don't feel comfortable relying on a citation to a source published in 1665 (did Hooke actually say the feathers would otherwise be brown? Did he call the phenomenon "Structural coloration"?) If "Coloration" is the typical spelling, and "colouration" is odd or quaint, why not change the spellings of "colour" to "color"?
- You mean have the hook in US English? Guess that'd be OK. British English uses "colour". Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I checked the cited Scientific American article, and it does not have the word "brown" in it, and I don't feel comfortable relying on a citation to a source published in 1665 (did Hooke actually say the feathers would otherwise be brown? Did he call the phenomenon "Structural coloration"?) If "Coloration" is the typical spelling, and "colouration" is odd or quaint, why not change the spellings of "colour" to "color"?
- Have added refs for peacock's iridescence in lead. "Coloration" is the spelling most often used in England (see talk of Animal coloration for discussion) by native speakers; we find "colouration" odd or quaint, so there's no better spelling to choose, I'm afraid. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be able to approve a different hook (that doesn't mention the underlying brown color): Sasata (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the blue, turquoise and green colors of peacock tail feathers result from structural coloration?
- Well let's at least mention the picture, given this is all about colour:
- ALT2: ... that the blue, turquoise and green colors of peacock tail feathers (pictured) result from structural coloration?
Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
