![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kc258,
Jacob8598,
Pwngrl777,
Leaonna. Peer reviewers:
SwimSusan.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Madisonjb.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Jacob8598, Leaonna, Kc258: thank you for your work on this article, which I see contains your first student contributions to Wikipedia. However, I have a few suggestions to make for its improvement.
At the moment, this article reads as a list of illustrations, like
I suggest we rewrite all such lists as single topic paragraphs: Behavior A is ... It is found in A1, which ..., in A2, which differs by ..., and in A3, which ... . It's less repetitive (and a lot less klunky), but more importantly it focuses on the topic, mimicry, and its variations.
Secondly, the article is poorly cited. There are two things to say here. 1) Everything needs to be reliably sourced. 2) Reliable sources are textbooks or review articles, i.e. secondary materials which soberly and at some distance in time look over the (primary) research literature and report what seems to be generally true, rather than arguing from some field observations that something new is (arguably) happening. At the moment, most of the claims in the article are primary (i.e., any editor could freely delete them as improperly sourced). The article should be based mainly on textbooks or review papers; primary research should be used rarely, preferably only for background on earlier research. This is almost the opposite of what you'd want to do as a scientist, but it's what an encyclopedia needs (stability, reliability); science and encyclopedias of course share one requirement, verifiability. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap If very little of this information is reviewed in secondary sources, what is the course of action? Delete useful information, as we can't leave it uncited but cannot use primary sources either? Jacob8598 ( talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the intro is a little repetitive with how many times you mention snakes, maybe change the initial mention to just reptiles in general and then get more specific as it goes.
You do not have enough citing, there are full paragraphs where you don’t cite anything, particularly in the classification section.
For future reference, you do not need to type "further information" and then link the page, it makes things cluttered, just link the page when you introduce the topic. You also don't need to define something that you have linked, that is the general point of linking to an external page.
Are slow loris the ONLY venomous mammal?
For the caudal luring, you have a sentence where you say that "Male puff adders have longer, more obvious-looking tails" and that is they whole idea, but there is no explanation of how they specifically use that tail. Then you mention that the rattle snake tail is a form of caudal luring, but as to my understanding - which may be wrong - the rattle on a rattlesnake's tail may have evolved from caudal luring, but is used as a warning not a luring mechanism. A good example of this, that is easy to explain, is in the Iranian spider tailed horned viper.
Overall the additions you have made are well done.
SwimSusan ( talk) 17:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)SwimSusan
General review-
Overall, I think this article provides an extensive and in depth overview of the topic. However, I do think being more concise might make it more engaging and easier to read; there seems to be an overwhelming amount of information for the reader. This being said, now having read the article, I definitely know a lot more about mimicry in vertebrates. Additionally, I appreciate the simplicity in the structure of your article.
In the introduction to the topic, I think it might prove useful for you to mention that mimicry in vertebrates can be divided into multiple categories based on certain factors. This will set the reader up with what to expect from the rest of the article.
Additionally, I think you should add a section on the different species of vertebrates that engage in this behavior because you mention it is rare. You could also maybe spend a sentence briefly describing the type of mimicry that each of the species engage in.
As for grammar, I think shortening your sentences would make them less confusing and in general, it would make the article flow better.
You rely very heavily on primary sources, rather than secondary and tertiary sources.
You should define defensive mimicry before getting into the different types, just as you did for aggressive and auto mimicry. Additionally, you should always cite definitions (the definitions for auto and aggressive mimicry aren't cited). You also use a direct quote (which I think should be avoided anyway), without citing (you are talking about slow lorises and the Cobra).
I also have a concern about the section on host-parasite mimicry. I think this warrants its own section rather than clubbing it under aggressive mimicry (especially based on the example of cuckoos that you provide). Additionally, I'm confused as to how mimicking a socially dominant member of the species falls under host-parasite mimicry.
In the "Evolution' section, I think it's important to mention what the unique selective pressures are for vertebrate mimicry. In general, I think this section is vague, including the title of the section. I wasn't sure what this was trying to convey and you have also ended the section on an awkward note. I think spending some time trying to fix this section could prove useful because it is a very interesting topic. You do a great job of explaining why mimicry is much rarer in vertebrates than in invertebrates. However, I think you make vertebrates the focus of this section.
Overall, I think you guys have done a great job! Hopefully these comments are helpful, and let me know if you have any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viditbhandarkar ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)