Talk:Industrial melanism

Industrial melanism 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: December 19, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Non-insect species?

A mention that darker feathers in pigeons may allow the birds to get rid of more zinc. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0164 Ditto sea snakes. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.06.073 David notMD (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Industrial melanism/GA1. 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)[reply]

I propose taking on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's very good of you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pigeons also mentioned in a new section on trace metals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh dear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Many thanks for your inputs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]