Talk:Mimicry in vertebrates

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kc258, Jacob8598, Pwngrl777, Leaonna. Peer reviewers: SwimSusan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Madisonjb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Some suggestions
,, : thank you for your work on this article, which I see contains your first student contributions to Wikipedia. However, I have a few suggestions to make for its improvement.

At the moment, this article reads as a list of illustrations, like


 * Species A1 exhibits a performance of ethological behavior A. Species A2 likewise displays an exhibit of behavior A. Species A3 similarly also exhibits behavior A.

I suggest we rewrite all such lists as single topic paragraphs: Behavior A is ... It is found in A1, which ..., in A2, which differs by ..., and in A3, which ... . It's less repetitive (and a lot less klunky), but more importantly it focuses on the topic, mimicry, and its variations.

Secondly, the article is poorly cited. There are two things to say here. 1) Everything needs to be reliably sourced. 2) Reliable sources are textbooks or review articles, i.e. secondary materials which soberly and at some distance in time look over the (primary) research literature and report what seems to be generally true, rather than arguing from some field observations that something new is (arguably) happening. At the moment, most of the claims in the article are primary (i.e., any editor could freely delete them as improperly sourced). The article should be based mainly on textbooks or review papers; primary research should be used rarely, preferably only for background on earlier research. This is almost the opposite of what you'd want to do as a scientist, but it's what an encyclopedia needs (stability, reliability); science and encyclopedias of course share one requirement, verifiability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * comments by Ben Stone for Bio 267 class:
 * To start off, I think you lead is very good. It is informative yet concise, and doesn't get bogged down with too many examples. I also think the way your whole article is organized is very clear, but sometimes, it seems like some parts are a lot longer than others, and might go on too long. Maybe there was just less info on some forms of mimicry than others, but still it isn't necessary to list too many examples for each form of mimicry. I'm especially thinking of the Mullerian mimicry section, which becomes a bit long to read. The others are better lengths and easier to get through.
 * I think that all your information is valid, but maybe you could talk about some of the negative effects of the different kinds of mimicry. For example, I'm sure that there are some fitness costs associated with the different forms of mimicry, otherwise all species would exhibit them right? I don't know this for a fact, but it might be worth looking into.
 * Although you might also be lacking some secondary sources, like books or review articles, but I think that it is good that you used many sources. It shows that you aren't copying just from one source and rewriting it in your own words, but you tried taking it from many different ones and summarizing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenAllanStone (talk • contribs) 13:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If very little of this information is reviewed in secondary sources, what is the course of action? Delete useful information, as we can't leave it uncited but cannot use primary sources either? Jacob8598 (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that the key points are covered in good textbooks and review papers. The claims that aren't must be too recent for such reliable coverage, and are basically out of scope of the Encyclopedia. Deletion would indeed then be appropriate, but that means checking first; and so far, the article isn't even citing secondary sources. Best start from the right end of the telescope and sketch out the article's shape reliably from textbooks and review papers, then we can see if there are obvious gaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Bio267 Peer edits
,, :

The second paragraph of the intro is a little repetitive with how many times you mention snakes, maybe change the initial mention to just reptiles in general and then get more specific as it goes.

You do not have enough citing, there are full paragraphs where you don’t cite anything, particularly in the classification section.

For future reference, you do not need to type "further information" and then link the page, it makes things cluttered, just link the page when you introduce the topic. You also don't need to define something that you have linked, that is the general point of linking to an external page.

Are slow loris the ONLY venomous mammal?

For the caudal luring, you have a sentence where you say that "Male puff adders have longer, more obvious-looking tails" and that is they whole idea, but there is no explanation of how they specifically use that tail. Then you mention that the rattle snake tail is a form of caudal luring, but as to my understanding - which may be wrong - the rattle on a rattlesnake's tail may have evolved from caudal luring, but is used as a warning not a luring mechanism. A good example of this, that is easy to explain, is in the Iranian spider tailed horned viper.

Overall the additions you have made are well done.

SwimSusan (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)SwimSusan

Vidit's Peer Review
General review-

Overall, I think this article provides an extensive and in depth overview of the topic. However, I do think being more concise might make it more engaging and easier to read; there seems to be an overwhelming amount of information for the reader. This being said, now having read the article, I definitely know a lot more about mimicry in vertebrates. Additionally, I appreciate the simplicity in the structure of your article.

In the introduction to the topic, I think it might prove useful for you to mention that mimicry in vertebrates can be divided into multiple categories based on certain factors. This will set the reader up with what to expect from the rest of the article.

Additionally, I think you should add a section on the different species of vertebrates that engage in this behavior because you mention it is rare. You could also maybe spend a sentence briefly describing the type of mimicry that each of the species engage in.

As for grammar, I think shortening your sentences would make them less confusing and in general, it would make the article flow better.

You rely very heavily on primary sources, rather than secondary and tertiary sources.

You should define defensive mimicry before getting into the different types, just as you did for aggressive and auto mimicry. Additionally, you should always cite definitions (the definitions for auto and aggressive mimicry aren't cited). You also use a direct quote (which I think should be avoided anyway), without citing (you are talking about slow lorises and the Cobra).

I also have a concern about the section on host-parasite mimicry. I think this warrants its own section rather than clubbing it under aggressive mimicry (especially based on the example of cuckoos that you provide). Additionally, I'm confused as to how mimicking a socially dominant member of the species falls under host-parasite mimicry.

In the "Evolution' section, I think it's important to mention what the unique selective pressures are for vertebrate mimicry. In general, I think this section is vague, including the title of the section. I wasn't sure what this was trying to convey and you have also ended the section on an awkward note. I think spending some time trying to fix this section could prove useful because it is a very interesting topic. You do a great job of explaining why mimicry is much rarer in vertebrates than in invertebrates. However, I think you make vertebrates the focus of this section.

Overall, I think you guys have done a great job! Hopefully these comments are helpful, and let me know if you have any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viditbhandarkar (talk • contribs) 03:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)