Talk:Eyespot (mimicry)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2018 and 15 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iriscmire.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Article name

Since it seems clear that they aren't always used in mimicry, and may not be at all, perhaps a more neutral name like eyespot (marking) is desirable? Richard001 (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Richard

Confused lead, what's the message?

Possibly related to the 2010 comment about the article's title, the lead needs rewriting. It sets out several contradictory theories, directly cites recent primary sources (research papers, not review articles or books that discuss and place the research into context) - and it shouldn't contain refs or discussion that aren't in the diminutive article body either, and mumbles repetitively about possibly not being functional. Cott 1940 was crystal clear that eyespots were highly functional, and nobody frankly has contradicted that.

Suggest the article needs new clear section on each of the theories (deimatic/startle; mention of aposematic/foul-tasting honest signal where applicable; strong resemblance to vertebrate predator (binocular vision) eyes, i.e. mimicry in service of deimatic effect; sexual selection; sometimes perhaps just 'spandrel' accident/morphogenesis), and rewritten lead that makes these points shortly and sweetly. Of these, I think mimicry is just part of the deimatic/aposematic signalling effect.

List of refs needs to go back a bit to get some historical perspective, with a section on 'Early research' or just 'History' - Cott of course; and Messrs Darwin, Wallace, Bates do rather need a mention. So, we rewrite the lead, and the body, and the refs. Guess that at least leaves the article name unchanged ... 'course, we could change that too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Image Placement

I migrated some examples from the page "Automimicry" to here, because they are more appropriately placed in this page. Some of the pictures are quite nice, but I don't know how to arrange them on the page. Some appear all the way down by /*Morphogenesis*/ :( Can someone with more Wiki skills please edit their placement? Dwkikuchi (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, we could. It's obviously your responsibility if you import images to put them somewhere sensible - space for images is always limited, and many editors object strongly to image clutter (specially at GA, and even more at FA). It's not generally all right, therefore, simply to import images that are "quite nice" - the criterion for inclusion is not "could do with it" but (as in Three Men in a Boat) "can't do without it". So please remove anything that isn't ESSENTIAL.

The first thing is simply to paste in each image in the section where you want it, and as a quick rule of thumb, no more than one per section unless there's a lot of text there.

After that you can set the parameter |left to place one or two images on the left hand side - that takes care, as you don't want to foul up section headings, quotes, or tables, nor do we want the text squeezed between a pair of images as the window is resized. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

What about cockroaches?

This does not mention cockroaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.196.65 (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It rightly doesn't. If you know otherwise, cite your evidence here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eyespot (mimicry)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 16:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • Second paragraph - both sentences start with "Eyespots..." and the first sentence is very convoluted - can we break it up somewhat and make it more accessible? Remember the lead is often times the only section that's read and if it's too dense, the reader will usually just give up.
    • Reworded, and split the long sentence.

• • Similarly, third paragraph - I know you link "Morphogenesis" but it's not easy to get the meaning from the sentence itself - perhaps use "The biological process that forms the shape (or morphogenesis) of eyespots is controlled by a small number of.."
    • Good idea, reworded.
  • And continuing in that sentence "...by a small number of genes active in embryonic development of a wide range of animals, including Engrailed, Distal-less, Hedgehog, Antennapedia, and the Notch signaling pathway." is confusing. I was expecting a list of animals - and I got well, when they are listed - one appears to be an animal (hedgehog) and perhaps another (antennapedia), but the other three listed are... only discover that all five links are for genes ... not the animals. Do we need to link the genes in the lead? Otherwise, we need some way of making it clear that the hedgehog link is NOT to an animal but to a gene named after it - I note that the actual link redirects to "Hedgehog signaling pathway"?
    • Ah yes. Rearranged the sentence.
• In butterflies:
  • "Butterfly eyespots can mimic dead leaves for camouflage from predators, as seen in Bicyclus anynana; this is a response to a seasonal fall in temperature, causing a shift in selection towards smaller, less conspicuous eyespots." this seems to imply that the size of the spots on this species change with the seasons?
    • Yes, though once a butterfly has grown to be an adult, its spots are fixed, so its the season of "birth" that determines spot size. Adjusted the text.
• In fish:
  • "and about the fish's likely direction of travel" this was hard to parse because the verb ("decieve") was so distant and so much took place between the verb and this phrase... Suggest "This may deceive predators in two ways: first, into attacking the tail rather than the more vulnerable head, and second, about the fish's likely direction of travel. For fish with eyespots, it is an example of self-mimicry."
    • Edited.
  • link for "spotted mandarin fish" and "spotted ray"
    • Added.
• Morphogenesis:
  • Link for "source/diffusion model" "source/threshold model" and "sink model"?
    • Added one link, the others are explained in the text.
  • Link for "repressing transcription"?
    • Added.
• Distal-less:
  • Nothing wrong in this section, just noting that I mostly understood it! (Not bad for a medievalist with a horsewoman's understanding of genetics...)
    • Thanks!
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool no copyright concerns.
  • Just as well.

I did do some copyediting, please make sure I didn't change any sourced text beyond what the sources will support or that I haven't broken anything.

Thank you.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ealdgyth Excellent, many thanks for the review. I think I've done everything you've asked for. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I've seen it but I'm currently winding through the mountains in Tennessee with a ... variable ... internet connection. Should be more stable this afternoon, I'm hoping... Ealdgyth (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

My connection is a bit better, working well now after 2 engineers worked on it today... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, mine is dependent on a mobile hotspot that was going up and downhill in the TN foothills! And my poor laptop was also bouncing around a bit on the folding table... so it was a bit difficult to type well. We're stopped for a while now ... so passing this - looks good. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. How nice to be allowed out all day. We can go for one exercise walk, from our own front door only. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)