Talk:Counter-illumination/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 08:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward to reviewing the article. !
 * Many thanks for taking this on! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Small comments

 * It would be better if we could describe what is meant by "lower surfaces" in the lead.
 * Said downward-facing. The side facing down.


 * Link symbiotic bacteria.
 * Done.


 * Silvering should be described too, as it seems to be a rather unknown term.
 * Done.


 * Fish is overlinked.
 * Done.


 * Would be better to further clarify what is meant by upper surface.
 * Said "upper side". The side facing up.


 * Link emission spectrum.
 * Done.

should mention something like "In an experiment conducted..." before "In cold water at...".
 * The part where we talk about the squid's wavelength emitted seems to be part of an experiment. If so, we
 * Done.


 * We should explain what we mean by "a system of filters".
 * Done.


 * Link bacteriogenic.
 * Nothing to link it to: the word is immediately glossed, and there bacteria and symbionts are already linked.


 * Link glandular organs.
 * Said "roughly spherical".


 * It would be better to mention what is the functionality of colour filters and reflectors.
 * Both are now glossed with a brief explanation in the text.


 * Link crypts and diverticula.
 * Glossed them, nothing useful to link to (aka, they're illustrated only here).


 * Remove duplicate links.
 * Done.


 * "in the mesopelagic, and predation occurs from below." Shiuld be phrased better.
 * Edited.


 * "as does the Hawaiian bobtail squid" Perhaps this should be omitted as the species is mentioned in the next sentence?
 * Well spotted. Done.


 * It might be better to use convert templates for metres.
 * Done.


 * Ships and aircraft are overlinked.
 * Checked; linked them in the lead as well.


 * "Diffused lighting camouflage, in which visible light was projected on" instead, "Diffused lighting camouflage, in which visible light is projected on" as it is a phenomenon.
 * Done.


 * "National Research Council" should be linked.
 * Done.


 * For consistency, you should use either Second World War or World War II.
 * Second World War it is.


 * Link crosswind.
 * Done.


 * Is there a reference to note b?
 * In the caption in Yehudi lights.


 * Those are all done so far. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the indentation earlier. Was editing on phone, and I did not realize that. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Great work! Another excellent article. Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: