Jump to content

Talk:Signalling theory/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 01:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual selection
  • "In sexual selection, traits such as signalling are selected via the pressure of mate selection" -variations on the word select overrun this sentence. Can this be rephrased with only 1 or 2 instances.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, it was a bit klunky. Rewritten
Dishonest signals
  • Are you suggesting that a crab can determine how big its claw grows to be?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Its body as a system can do so. No conscious intention is implied.
History
  • "The question of whether individuals of the same species might not be attempting to deceive each other was raised by Richard Dawkins and John Krebs in 1978." - odd negative phrasing. Is it possible to have a positive phrase or a neutral phrase like might or might not?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    reworded positively
  • "They applied a gene-centered view of evolution to threat displays." this sentence relies entirely on the readers interest in clicking through to the linked page. Can you add some clarification here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    great suggestion, done, used informal "selfish gene" label and added a brief explanation of what it means
The sports handicapping metaphor
  • wikilink added
  • "This idea led to an explosion of research on the relationship between sexually selected signals, parasites and mate preferences during the 80s and early 90s." - results?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • replaced with summary of experiment that confirms Hamilton's theory
Costly signalling and Fisherian diploid dynamics
  • thanks, done
  • hyphen removed
Examples
  • "...signal from trees to aphids and other pest species that migrate to the trees in autumn" This is ambiguous. Do you mean that this is an autumn signal from the trees to aphids and other pest or the more proper reading of the sentence as written that this is a signal to "aphids and other pests that migrate in the autumn to the trees". I had believed that aphids were a problem during the bulk of the year, especially to green leaves, and not just in the fall, so I don't think this is correct as written. The subsequent text suggests you meant that you mean the latter, but I am not sure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archetti does say "to autumn parasite insects", so that's the intended meaning. Aphids are certainly a nuisance to some plants all summer, but autumn attacks are quite possible. I've tried to clarify, but feel free to tweak the text if it's not giving that meaning to you.
  • By bright do you mean the pink color to the right of the section as opposed to green or do you mean green as opposed to dark browns that many leaves turn?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink and other autumnal colours. Again, I've tried to clarify without making the text too repetitive, but feel free to tweak it if need be.
  • Because (they hypothesize) the bright pigments take energy to produce. Have tweaked the text.
  • Done, hope that's better. The pink tree is the only image in that section, so couldn't see any application for multiple image template. There are 3 images (horses, peacock, Irish elk) in the 'sports handicap metaphor' section but all already have captions mentioning 'handicap' (so unsure where confusion could come from).
Costly signalling in hunting
Physical risks as a costly signal
  • In "In a study of risk taking, some types of risk, such as physical or heroic risk for others' benefit, are viewed more favorably than others, such as taking drugs or useless physical risks." the final phrase seems to refer to others, but you may mean those viewed more favorably. The sentence is currently somewhat ambiguous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    simplified.
  • You twice use the phrase "risk taking in male friends". Should in be changed to either by, from or of?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    changed to "by".
  • "Costs associated with these donations are pain, anxiety, risk of infection, and time lost." seems incomplete to me since it does not include the reason I stopped giving. After seeing the O. J. Simpson murder case, where it is suspected that a possibly racist cop planted OJs blood, I fear the loss of control of my personal asset.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    have cut it down to "include pain and risk of infection", clearly there are many others.
Religion as a costly signal
  • How does Secularity differ from Atheism or non-agnostic behavior?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure that's relevant here; many other examples of possibly costly signalling could be given in many areas of life. The question makes me wonder if we shouldn't shorten the Religion section, e.g. removing the "Examples" subsection. (have now done that)
  • What about the opportunity cost of religion. If you spend a half or quarter of a day a week on this activity rather than working, farming or fishing what signal does that give? What about Mormon missions?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This prompts me to remove the "Examples" section as WP:UNDUE. Clearly, yes, there are costs associated with the signals, but their interpretation is controversial, as is stated in the section. The purpose of the section is just to illustrate that such questions can be examined by signalling theory, not to assert it has all the answers, so less is more. Hope the new balance is better for you. It looks better to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion[edit]

Not my area of expertise either, but I find it interesting, so I'll give it a look now, and add some comments later. For now, the main problem seems to be lack of citations after the last sentence in some paragraphs. It appears that citations are given in the beginning of paragraphs in some cases, but they should preferably be in the end. FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out, I'll address the issues now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • End of first paragraph under "Honest signals" needs a source. Last sentence in the section needs source too.
done
  • End of first paragraph under "Dishonest signals" needs a source.
done
  • Next last sentence under "Examples" needs a source.
text has been removed
  • End of last paragraph under "Re-evaluating biological signalling..." needs a source.
text has been removed
  • End of last sentence under "Costly signalling..." needs a source.
done
  • End of middle paragraph under "Religion as a costly signal" needs a source.
done
  • "On Zahavi's theory, signallers such as male peacocks have tails that are genuinely handicaps, being costly to produce." Should that not be "following (or "according to") Zahavi's theory"?
done
  • Since this article is not about economical "signalling", why is economic terminology mentioned in the "Honest signals" section? Seems to drift too far away form the article scope.
yes, it's too much for the main text. Moved it, rephrased, to footnotes.
  • The Irish elk is used as an example only in the uncourced caption to an image, could this be incorporated into the article with citations?
good idea, done
  • Is the section "Re-evaluating biological signalling vs. sports handicapping" original synthesis, or has this discussion actually been published? If the former, it would be problematic here.[1]
removed doubtful paragraph
  • The terms "public signals and private qualities" seem a bit odd in a biology article. Could it be rephrased, or is that how the sources define it?
yes, now "observable signals and unobservable qualities", which is plainer.
  • Should the names of theories really be in title caps? For example: "Costly Signaling Theory".
done, lower case
  • "Older hunters may wish to attract women interested in an extramarital relationship, or to be a sister wife." What is a "sister wife"?
link to wiktionary
  • Technically, the "tail" of a peacock is actually not tail feathers, but covert feathers that grow from the back and cover the actual tail. Not sure if this is relevant.
put 'tail' in quotes in lead; wl tail covert in text
  • The meaning of "diploid" should probably be explained in the article rather than the lead.
reworded with diploid in parentheses
  • That's it from me, apart from the issues above, I think the article looks good, and is an interesting read. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. OK, over to first reviewer... Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your hard work. I am now going to PASS this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Signalling_theory/GA1&oldid=1004457555"