Talk:Industrial melanism/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I propose taking on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's very good of you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

First reading

 * I usually skip the lead when I am reviewing and return to it later. The first sentence in "History" is a bit abrupt and non-self-explanatory.
 * Extended sentence.


 * The sentence starting "By 1973" is too long.
 * I've split the sentence.


 * Where species or genera are mentioned in citations, they should be in italics.
 * Fixed.


 * I cannot access your #16 (Muggleton), but I had always imagined that the peppered moth had evolved in response to dark-coloured deposits on surfaces during the Industrial Revolution, rather than a decrease in lichen cover, but presumably I am wrong.
 * It was both; the loss of lichens and the soot meant that tree trunks went from multi-patterned (like the birch trunk shown in History) to black. BTW you can reach the paper by clicking on the DOI link; it's free if you register with JSTOR or I can send it to you.


 * "A century later," - In 2021 for example?
 * Nearly.


 * "The darker forms have a stronger immune response to foreign objects, as the melanic pigment is involved in the encapsulation of foreign bodies." - Could you explain this better? What sort of foreign bodies are we talking about?
 * Explanation added. The foreign bodies can be almost anything that can get into an insect's body from bacteria to inanimate particles.


 * I am not convinced by the "thermal advantage" theory, but that's OK, because the article is not presenting it as correct, but only mentioning it as a theory. When we are talking about colour, everything has to be some colour or other, like human eye or hair colour, and I doubt those are driven significantly by natural selection.
 * Absolutely. The thing demanding explanation is why those ladybirds are darker in polluted areas, however.


 * Looking back at the lead now, it seems to be a reasonable summary of the main text.
 * Noted.


 * That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * I previously inserted text and a citation on seasnakes into the Alternative explanations subsection Immunity, but the idea of skin (and feathers - the Chatelain articles on pigeons in Paris) deserves more content and its own subsection.
 * Seasnakes are covered in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pigeons also mentioned in a new section on trace metals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The Thermal advantage section has conflicting theories - are cities warmer or colder than surrounding land? If warmer, then being melanic for faster heating does not make sense. Also, for insects, is being warmer a known advantage? Reptiles seek warm places to foster being physically active, but at least some insects (bumblebees) are known to shiver their flight muscles as a pre-flight warming method.
 * It's not for us to theorize. The section summarizes the theories stated in the papers cited, and indicates where the theory fails, again suitably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Each example of industrial melanism should have a description of the type of causitive pollution: soot from coal? sulphur dioxide associated with acid rain? specific metals such as lead, cadmiumn, mercury and zinc?
 * That assumes the researchers knew, which they often didn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The lede names seven insect species as examples, but only three of those are referenced either there or elsewhere in the article.
 * I've removed the uncited examples, and added a cited section on taxonomic range. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * An interesting article with a mention of industrial melanism in House sparrows can be found at https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/isspar.2012.36.issue-1/isspar-2015-0012/isspar-2015-0012.pdf (see pages 38-40). What was tentatively described as industrial melanism was reported to be the result of the birds doing dust baths in soot and ash. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Another comment
This article will benefit by inclusion of a brief section on controversy, with a link to Peppered moth evolution. The anti-evolutionists apparently want to debate this topic ad infinitum, but the PME article and its referenced literature is a helpful adjunct. David notMD (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

My concerns resolved
Questions and gaps I noted have been resolved to my satisfaction. It was important that this article does not rest solely on the wings of the peppered moth. David notMD (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your inputs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

GA criteria

 * The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
 * The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
 * The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
 * The article is neutral.
 * The article is stable.
 * The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.


 * Final assessment - I am happy with the improvements made to the article with regard to David notMD's and my comments, and I believe it reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)