Talk:Deception in animals

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Deception in animals has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 10, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Animals Mid‑importance

Deception in animals is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Archives

Archive 1

GA Review

Passed. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SilverTiger12 (talk · contribs) 15:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. Expect my comments later today. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'll attend to any comments promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria: 1. Well-written:

Who is this Robert Mitchell you introduce in the lede? I suggest linking and adding a gloss of sort (Biologist/zoologist/whatever Robert Mitchell....)
- Done.

There are relatively few examples of animal behaviour which might be attributed to the manipulative type of deception which we know occurs in humans, i.e. "tactical deception". Please rephrase the bolded part; as it is it doesn't quite read as encyclopedic in tone.
- Done.

There's some level of repetition but since it's primarily definition-related, I do not see it as a problem.
- Noted.

The can be in visual appearance, behaviour, sound, and scent. I think you missed a word or two here.
- Fixed.

Some deep-sea anglerfishes of the bathypelagic zone emit light from their escas to attract prey. This bioluminescence is a result of symbiosis with bacteria. Very cool, but off-topic
- Removed.

The whole mimicry section is rather choppy in wording and sentence arrangement, honestly. Could you take a second look at it?
- Edited.

By the third level you also mention a Sekrst, again without any introduction. And an Angiletta et al. Why are these people significant?
- Glossed both.

Is there no better link for the self-deception section than the main self-deception article? That article will be human-centric and this article is about other animals.
- There isn't. I guess one could be written but that wouldn't form part of this GAN.

The whole self-deception section does not quite read encyclopedic in tone.
- Edited.

A part of me feels like the summary of the fourth level could be longer, but at the same time it adequately explains what the fourth level is.
- Noted.

2. Verifiable:

3. Broad in coverage: Yes. The organization of topics is easily followed and understood, with numerous links to appropriate main articles for sub-topics (two of which are also good articles- very nice for the curious reader).

- Thank you.

4. Neutral: Yes.

5. Stable: Yes.

6. Illustrated: Yes, and all images are appropriately licensed and suitable to their section. The captions need a little work- I've made my revisions, feel free to dispute any you think are detrimental.

OK.

Other:

Sources 16 (Miyatake et al 2004) and 18 (Hansen et al 2008) were done in an initial spot check.
- Noted.
Angiletta et al 2019 has two citation instances (25 and 26 at the time of this initial review).
- Fixed.

All in all, not bad, but the Mimicry and Self-deception sections need significant work before I'd feel comfortable passing this article. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.