Talk:Handicap principle

This article should really be titled the Handicap Principle, which I think is what Zahavi originally called it.

Unless one beleives that a 'principle' is something that requires a certain definition be met, and that the Handicap Theory fails to meet it... Pete.Hurd 01:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, what one believes is irrelevant, what matters is the name that is normally used for it. In my experience it's always called a "principle", and google confirms: [1], [2]. I agree it should be moved. David Sneek 21:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, go for it. Pete.Hurd 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Figures

Fig. 1 - Johnstone's 1997 graphical representation of a Zahavian handicap. Where $C_{L}$ is cost to a low quality signaller and $C_{H}$ is cost to a high quality signaller. Optimal signalling levels are $S_{L}^{*}$ for a low quality signaller, and $S_{H}^{*}$ for a high quality signaller.

Fig. 2 - Johnstone's 1997 graphical representation of a handicapped signal of need. Where $B_{L}$ and $B_{H}$ are the benefits to Low and High motivated signallers. Optimal signalling levels are $S_{L}^{*}$ for a low motivation signaller, and $S_{H}^{*}$ for a high motivation signaller

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pete.Hurd (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not yet ready for GA

I believe this article requires more work before placing up for GA. It is too short, was not wikified, has difficult english almost unintelligible to non-scientists and could do with expansion. The nice graphs placed above by Pete Hurd need to be added in the text if they are relevant. Some reference to the counter examples are hidden in wikitext. Why? NPOV requires both sides of the arguments to be presented. It would also be nice if an image of stotting can be added to give greater graphical appeal to the article. I feel the article has potentioal for GA but after more work. It may fail in its present state. Regards, AshLin 13:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]