# Talk:Animal Coloration (book)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Animal Coloration (1892 book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 12:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


### Taking on this review
I'll take on this review - the subject of the book interests me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


### First reading
In general, the article looks and reads well. Being a bit more specific, -

"Figure 2 bears a monograph "FR", lower left. Figure 7, of the penguin Aptenodytes patagonica is stated to be "from Brehm" (Brehms Tierleben)." - I think you could combine these two sentences into one.
done
We could do with some more wikilinks. Some I noticed were Zoological Society, London Zoo, sole, chameleon (at first mention), tree frog, horned lizard, Kallima butterfly,
done
"though he remains sceptical of cases "which are to be appreciated only by insects" as he considers that their vision might not be good enough to perceive it." - This somewhat complex sentence has "perceive it" at the end which jars with me.
split, rewritten
"On mimicry, Allen is critical of Bates's theory, which "close scrutiny of these alleged cases ... shows that"" - In this sentence, I think you might miss out the words "close scrutiny of these alleged cases".
done
In the section called "The Auk", after "Allen writes that", I am confused as to what bits are quotation and what are not.
explicitly embedded in quote tag
In the Reception section, you mostly mention who the reviewer was (except for Allen) but you do not mention anywhere, as far as I can see, much about Beddard, his area of expertise, why his views might be considered important etc. Nor do you mention the publisher and the circumstances of publication, nor the subtitle (visible in the first edition title page).
described Allen
added description of Beddard to 'Context'
subtitle listed in full in lead
full publication details in bibliography
I thought the Context, Approach and Structure sections good but was less happy with the Reception section. In some places I thought it "over quoted" - often indirect speech would have conveyed the same meaning and been clearer. However, that's just a personal view. By and large the prose is satisfactory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
removed a number of direct quotes, rewritten in indirect speech
I believe I've answered all of these to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


### GA Criteria
1a The article is well written and the points I mentioned above have been dealt with.
1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines.
2a&b The article is well referenced and has inline citations for all contentious statements.
2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
3a&b The coverage is broad enough and the article does not include irrelevant material.
4 The article is neutral.
5 The article was created by the nominator in February 2013 and has hardly been edited by anybody else.
6 The images are in the public domain having been created over one hundred years ago.
7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
Overall assessment - Pass. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)