# Talk:Motion camouflage

This review is transcluded from Talk:Motion camouflage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 22:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take this one. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this article could benefit from more text about the research history of this theory. What are the major studies and figures? Any criticisms? Etc.
Explained different mechanisms in more depth. I believe however that biology articles should focus on the mechanisms (and where necessary on the evidence for those) rather than studies or researchers.
Well, I think the "coverage" criterion would demand that research context be included as well. This might be easier to do in its own section or something, but what you have done now seems fine. FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Also maybe some more in depth discussion of the various studies, if possible.
See above.
I think the sentences after the bullet points could start with a capital letter.
Rewritten as subsections with more detail, examples, and an image.
The first image could need a citation on its description page. Is it based on a published diagram?
Cited. It's freshly drawn but based on diagrams such as those in the cited works.
"Motion camouflage is a dynamic type of camouflage which works even when in motion." Seems an odd way to put it, surely it works only in motion?
Reworded.
"involves an attacker's mimicking the optic flow of the background as seen by its target." Is genitive S really needed here?
Yes.
It seems the article begins by indicating motion camouflage mainly refers to the "looming perspective" type, but then goes on to describe other types in passing. So I think you should start by saying the term refers to several different types of camouflage that involve motion. Now, you have to read about one type in detail before even realising there are others.
Rearranged.
"First discovered in hoverflies in 1995, motion camouflage has been demonstrated in another insect order, dragonflies" Likewise, if the term "motion camouflage" also refers to other types, then it surely wasn't discovered in 1995, since you mention examples from WW1, and animal examples that have been known for probably centuries.
clarified. Optic flow mimicry is what is meant by 'motion camouflage' 95% of the time, though if we're being exceptionally nerdy and analytic in the manner of encyclopedists then we have to admit there are other possibilities!
The order is also a bit confusing, in the intro you describe the "perspective" type in detail, and then briefly describe others, but in the article body, you begin with the other types, and end with the supposedly "principal" type.
Reordered lead.
"The steering laws to achieve motion camouflage have been derived." What is meant by derived here? I'm not sure I understand the sentence.
Reworded.
"so motion "does not entirely 'break' camouflage." Direct quotes should have in-text attribution, but does it really need to be a quote?
Reworded without quotes.
"Further information: List of camouflage methods" could be moved up to the first section.
Done.
Changes look good, the newly added note needs a citation, but after that I'm ready to pass. FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. Reworded the note - all we're saying is that there's no reason to believe these species are special in any way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Alright, that may not be as certain as we would think (especially if not stated specifically in the source), but I'd leave it at that and pass now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)