Talk:Mutationism/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the careful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

I'm seeing a lot of tiny sections. Not that it's a problem but if a bunch of sections are just one paragraph then they don't necessarily have to be different sections. You don't really have to do this one, giant sections is more my style than yours User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're for clarity of story-telling, as they give the reader a historical overview in the table of contents, which is restricted to two levels. I'd be very loth to collapse the article to just top-level sections, which would indeed be very long; and even more so to leave the longer sections named, tacking the shorter ones on somehow or other.

Saltationism is wikilinked twice in the lead (the first time at "sudden jump"). On the first mention you could just put the term in parentheses right next to it. Also it's not wikilinked on first mention in the main text User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

I'm seeing a lot of hidden wikilinks so I'd recommend putting the actual term in parentheses right next to wikilinked phrase or at the end of the sentence (whichever works) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but there were only one or two.

"de Vries named it mutationstheorie," do you think it's better to leave the German word up there or the English translation "mutation theory"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need both: the original Dutch term is used by historians.

first paragraph of the Geoffroy's monstrosities, 1822 section lacks a ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

when you're quoting something, you have to have a comma before the quotation marks (for example, "endorsed a theory of saltational evolution that 'monstrosities could...' " → "endorsed a theory of saltational evolution that,'monstrosities could...' "), unless it's just a phrase (like "Wilhelm Johannsen's 'pure line' experiments..." is fine) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a Yank/Brit thing... I've looked through my usages and am happy with them.

when you're defining heterogenesis, what's a nonmaterial force? Could you give an example? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: Kölliker meant orthogenesis, possibly with a touch of vitalism.

"He examined discontinuous variation (saltation[17])..." I think the ref should be outside the parentheses, and since saltation is already defined at this point, I don't think "discontinuous variation" is necessary User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinuous variation was the term he used, and it's not a synonym for saltation, that was misleading. Said "implying a form of saltation".

Is ref number 19 this? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was part 1. I've added URLs for both parts.

"The offspring had a smooth random distribution" → "The offspring had a smooth, random distribution," commas're used to separate adjectives if they can't be switched sensically (like you wouldn't say "random smooth distribution") User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again I suspect that's a Yank/Brit thing, I would find a comma totally jarring right there.

A lot of these refs are probably written in German, so they need to have the parameter language=German

added German/Dutch/Danish as appropriate.

you sometimes switch in and out of the pluperfect tense mid-sentence (like the third sentence of the Yule's analysis of Mendelism and continuous variation, 1902 section). Be consistent User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added "indeed": I've correctly used the simple past for what Yule did, and the pluperfect for the rare occasion when I needed to refer yet further back to Mendel's actions.

"However, the 'excellent' paper did not prevent the..." I like how you used sarcasm here, but I feel like it's somehow not encyclopedic User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provine's words, not mine, and he wasn't being sarcastic. I read Yule's papers and they are indeed good. I've cited the word directly.

" 'Einige Ergebnisse von Kreuzungen bei Hafer und Weizen' " needs to be italicized in the Nilsson-Ehle's experiments on Mendelian inheritance and continuous variation, 1908 section

Done.

In the Nilsson-Ehle's experiments on Mendelian inheritance and continuous variation, 1908 section when you're listing what he found, you may want to use semi-colons instead of periods to better connect each thought and so you don't have to keep using "he found" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, done.

"...but as he'd only..." contraction User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

wikilink "wild type" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"...rejected Nei's thinking as mistaken, Galtier, Weiss..." I think you meant to put a period after "mistaken" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct: "while W rejected N as mistaken, G etc said it was a relevant alternative."

a couple of the refs are still missing some stuff and aren't formatted right, like ref no. 55 needs a doi (10.1038/463864a) and the |journal= parameter isn't italicized User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted.

convert ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Converted.

there're a lot of books listed without an ISBN, but I'm pretty sure all of them have an ISBN User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

References[edit]

note c needs a ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

the second paragraph in the Historiography needs a ref at the end User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

ref no. 85 is incomplete User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

ref no. 28 isn't formatted right User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted.

ref no. 1 has an ISBN 978-0-8018-4391-4 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

ref no. 5 has an ISBN 978-0-12-088777-4

Added.

rule of thumb, if a book was published after 1980, it's probably gonna have an ISBN User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.

for all the ref titles in a foreign language, make sure they have a |transtitle= parameter for the title in English User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully all done now.

More refs[edit]

I think the refs published before 1900 all have urls (like ref no. 4 at https://archive.org/details/fromgreekstodarw00osboiala). Also ref no. 4 needs page numbers, and since it's a book I'm pretty sure it'll have an ISBN User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe they do but providing urls for old books is certainly beyond the requirement here. I'll take a quick look. If you feel it's important, feel free to join in and add some. I've added the URL and page range for ref 4, Osborn, and others below.Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ref no. 8 will definitely have a url and an ISBN User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but hardly necessary. However, wikilink and URL added. ISBNs for much later editions only.

ref no. 16 same's above User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

ref no. 19 is missing trans-title parameter User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

ref no. 22 I think's missing some stuff User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added publisher, and in doing so I located a suitable URL...

ref no. 26 isn't formatted correctly and since it was published in 2006 I feel like it's gonna have a doi User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

ref no. 28 needs trans-title User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

ref no. 29 might have a url and an ISBN User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a URL, added, but Google haven't scanned the text yet.

ref no. 33 needs |trans-title User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

rule of thumb, if it's published before 1920, it's probably gonna be on archive.org User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but again this is beyond the GA criteria. I have found online sources for all but one citation, a work by Willis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

File:Hugo de Vries (1848-1935), by Thérèse Schwartze (1851-1918).jpg, File:Kölliker Rudolph Albert von 1818-1902.jpg, and File:Bateson@72 (detail).jpg need US PD tags User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

if you're trying to take this to FA, File:Wilhelm Johannsen 1857-1927.jpg might have a problem with licensing, but it'll be fine for GA User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not.

File:Alternatives to Darwinism.svg is missing a reference from what I can tell. Again this is more of a problem for FA, but I figured I might's well point it out User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As above, but I've added refs anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

okay well it looks good now, it'll pass User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]