Eyespot (mimicry) has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 15, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
This does not mention cockroaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.196.65 ( talk) 12:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
Eyespot (mimicry) has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 15, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
This does not mention cockroaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.196.65 ( talk) 12:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)