Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:56, 29 January 2008.

---

Introduction to evolution

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been through extensive peer review, and modification in the course of obtaining GA status. We believe it is now ready for careful consideration of FA status. Filll (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• An ongoing - support/oppose Summary is on the bottom of this FA attempt's discussion page. --Random Replicator (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose References are formatted at best with troubling inconsistency. They, along with "further reading", need a thorough overhaul. Circeus (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Please ignore this. Being now ithout a computer until further notice, I don't hae the time nor patience to review it via lab material. Circeus (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Question How would you alter them to make them consistent?--Filll (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Re-formated titles of text to follow APA style in future reading section. Other than that, format seems to be consistent and accurate. All ISBN numbers were accurate as well as authors, dates and publishers. Ex. River of of eden. If this is incorrect please provide guidance. Thank you. --Random Replicator (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Question: This is the APA format for a single author text. [Smith, John Maynard. Evolutionary Genetics. Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN-10: 0198502311. A comprehensive introduction to the molecular and population aspects of evolutionary genetics.] Is this adequate? Should we include descriptors along with the citation as is done here?

Comment: I've spent the day applying the templates ... if it is wrong ... well at least it is consistently wrong .. thank you for your input. --Random Replicator (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Let's see... For basics, the isbn format breaks ISBN linking, external links should NEVER be formatted without text (there's a reason all usual Wikipedia web cites formats put the title there, people!), and if you're going to give full names in references, you might as well do the same in "further reading". Circeus (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Templates applied - format problems should now be resolved --- thanks for sharing information on template for standardizing; made the task so much easier. --71.77.211.77 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I will operate on the assumption that the template resolved the problem in the absence of any follow-up.--Random Replicator (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I truly want feedback on this concern since the lion's share of my efforts have been addressing it. No response since 12-22. It is now 1-10. I thought I could ask on talk page but there was a do not disturb statement at the top: If I commented on a Featured Content candidacy, I will be watching it. So I opted to wait for a commentary here. The do not disturb has since been replaced with a statement that their computer is broken. Can someone else who is keeping up with this FA attempt state whether Circeus concern is still valid before this page closes. I do want this issue to be corrected if it still falls short. --Random Replicator (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Object - Too many dot point sections, the examples section is entirely unreferenced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Agreed and noted. The bulleted list, intended to simplify have been worked into text in response to your concerns. The number have been dramatically reduced; the few remaining; I think you will agree are necessary. Thank you for your suggestion. Give me a day and citations will be added to the Hardy-Weinberg. As currently revised; it is essentially common knowledge; but can and will be reinforced with citations. I am assuming my additions here are appropriate; if not please provide me with direction so that I do not violate protocol. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Cited Hardy-Weinberg Section. Essentially a section heavy with vocabulary terms which were referenced to the widely read text by Neil Campbell. The section reads better; although I hated to drop my hypothetical examples; which really needed a bulleted list to be retained. --Random Replicator (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)<

Both concerns have been addressed; are your concerns resolved?--Random Replicator (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) It might be best to ask here, which sections do you think should be put into prose and why? Which bulleted sections would be improved by being put into prose? Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you returned to strike out the unreferenced concerns but failed to follow-up on our questions about "dot points". All dot points were removed with the exception for the list of reproductive barriers. That marked a dramatic decrease in the use of list. Do you mean to say "too many" when you mean to say "they should not be any"? Please respond so that I may consider revision before time runs out.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The article has many problems and is not ready for FA:
• Referencing is not FA standard. I see many unreferenced paragraphs:
• No references in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of *"Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection" section.
• Paragraphs 2 and 4 are referenced from the first paragraph: Darwin's On the Origin of Species. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• No references in paragraph 2 of "Vestigial structures" section.
• No references in paragraph 2 of "Examples" section.
• No references in paragraphs 1 and 2 of "Different perspectives on the mechanism of evolution" section.
• No references in paragraph 1 of "Rate of change" section.
• No references in paragraph 1 of "Unit of change" section.
• References 4, 5, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 38 and 39 have formatting problems. Always put references after a comma or full stop with no space in between.
• The article is POV. Even if it's an introduction, it should still mention a little about the creationism debate.
• I see a few short paragraphs with only one or two sentences. The article is not well-written and needs a copy-edit, but I cannot help because my English is not very good.
• Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure if I agree with this advise as per your talk page "Now add a lot of references. FA standard referencing = almost one reference per sentence, all paragraphs must have references." The article has been peered reviewed to the point of nausea and has already reached GA status. I believe the format issues for consistency are being cleaned up. This line ... The article is POV. Even if it's an introduction, it should still mention a little about the creationism debate. I'm thinking this comment - will elicit a response from others on this page; which should make for some interesting reading. --Random Replicator (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The article is an Intro to Evolution and does not need to discuss alternate origin theories / suppositions. To suggest it is POV becaue it doesn't discuss creationism is like complaining that an article on the 'Baptist' church is POV because it doesn't mention a little about the 'Roman Catholic' church. The article does a good job as an 'overview' of an 'intro to evolution'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, I find the criticism that an introductory article on evolution does not discuss creationism a bit strange. First, it is an introduction, so it cannot go into detail about everything. Second, it is a science article, not about religion or politics. Third, there are links to creationist discussions in the summary, and some discussion of creationist points (for example Objections to evolution and misconceptions about evolution). Since this editor did not realize that the article was already a GA, it is clear that this editor has not read the article very carefully and realized that his complaint about creationism has already been addressed, and has not realized that the article is already a GA. Also, although I am a big fan of heavy use of citations and references, for an introductory article, this is probably inappropriate. For an introductory article, the article should be as accessible as possible, and having a huge number of citations and footnotes really does not make an article accessible, particularly for beginners. Remember, we are not aiming this at a professional audience, or an adult audience, but at a beginning high school level. --Filll (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Referencing has been dramatically increased; despite my better judgment and general agreement with Filll on the need in an Introductory article which links to the primary document that is heavily referenced. None-the-less, there are now nearly 50 sources referenced. May we now consider that concern resolved? I am in strong disagreement with the POV claim. Perhaps you could expand upon that concern on the discussion page. --Random Replicator (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)--Random Replicator (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This creationism issue is a non-issue. The first question at the Talk:Evolution/FAQ, which I think is a good set of guidelines for this page as well, is "Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?". See that page for an excellent explanation that was obviously agreed upon by a previous consensus of evolution editors.

Kaypoh, try to explain why these paragraphs need citations - they don't need it for the sake of having citations - see Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines and WP:V. Also, point out what is not "well-written" so that the editors know what to improve (the editors obviously think it is well-written or they would not have submitted it). I might also mention that it is getting a little tiring to read "try GA first" in your reviews. Please check to see if articles already are GA - this comment makes it seem like you haven't carefully read the article. Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Citations and referencing has been dramatically increased which was in direct opposition to our mandate to increase readability. I did this to address this specific oppose. The number of references are approaching 70; nearly double the number when you opposed. A hope you will be responding to my efforts as time is surely running out.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I realize you have involved yourself in 54 other Featured Article Request since offering your insights on this one; so no doubt you are very busy. Such enthusiasm from a relatively new editor is appreciated. But perhaps you might spare the time to address your oppose as well as our attempts to resolve the concerns that you have raised?? Cheers!--Random Replicator (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kaypoh was requested to revisit oppose and has not.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Merge with Evolution. Support. Having read the article, it does seem to me to be comprehensive as an 'Introduction to Evolution' as the title states and is well referenced. It seem to follow Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Some small stylistic things: should the images alternate (right side, left side, right side)? And, the bullet points at 'Barriers that prevent fertilization' and 'Barriers acting after fertilization' should be changed to straight paragraph style. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC) I believe that this very good article ought to be simplified further to distinguish it from the main article on Evolution. It meets the criteria of an Feature Article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion: The bullets work here because this is a list of barriers and the list is easier to understand with the points. Why do you think it would be easier to understand in prose? Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it would be any easier to understand. It is why I support the article; it is a minor stylistic preference and is neither here nor there. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to the article. I think it is good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comment: I haven't finished reading the article yet, but I have a few stylistic comments already
• Is it necessary to have so many pictures in the introduction? I understand that pictures are appreciated by readers, but I don't think anyone will appreciate a glut of pictures so early on. The evolution page keeps it simple with just the template at the top, and my personal opinion is do the same thing here.
• Regarding the template at the top, I notice it's different to the one on the evolution page - is that wise, considering changes to one aren't guaranteed to be applied to the other in the future.
• This is just my opinion and not an objection, but I think all of the examples (and there are lots) need to be worked into the article a little better. For instance, in many cases a sentence starts with or includes "For example ..." (20 times by my count). Maybe it could be changed up a bit, alternatives like "that can be seen in the case of 'blah'" or something. It just feels awkward reading the same thing over and over. I think the lists at the end of the article should be turned into prose too.
• For the same reasons given by Wassupwestcoast, I don't see why creationism needs to be mentioned in this article. Ben 16:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The heavy use of pictures in the article was planned. This article is meant for a very different audience than evolution. Evolution aims at an advanced undergraduate level (14 or 15 years of schooling). Introduction to evolution aims at someone who is a freshman or sophmore in high school (10 or 11 years of schooling). Look at a book for elementary school students, a book for junior high school students and a book for high school students and a book for college students. Which books have the most pictures? Obviously, the books meant for younger and less educated readers have more pictures and they are more prominent. So at least in my opinion, you are not understanding what an introduction actually is and is meant to be in this situation.--Filll (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I wasn't questioning the number of pictures in the article, in fact I have no problem with that. I was concerned with so many pictures in the introduction to the article. Sorry for the confusion. Ben 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, that the excessive use of the term example does not make for good prose. However, there is the advantage of consistency that organizes the data in a way that one unfamiliar with the concept may better understand. In my experience with high school text books; transitional words can not be subtle or the young reader will become confused. If your opposition to the consistency is not passionate; then I would rather leave the For example ... approach as it stands. However, it would be simple enough to convert to "that can be seen in the case of 'blah'" if need be. Thank you for your constructive criticism. --Random Replicator (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Removed "The Tree" that has been added and removed several times in regards to the concern over clutter. It has been very difficult to balance the pictures; again because of my experience with textbooks, with the more "stark" approach of Wikipedia. Hope the removal served to improve the general appearance. --Random Replicator (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit out many of the "For Examples" as suggested--Random Replicator (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There may be confusion here: "I don't see why creationism needs to be mentioned in this article.". The article does not mention creationism; we were addressing an oppose that stated that it should by Kaypoh. If you care to strike through the last one! --Random Replicator (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there other concerns? The list you provided seems to have been addressed.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The statement evolution is supported by 99.9% of the scientific community is attributed to this NIH web page, but did the person quoted (Dr. Brian Alters) in the page literally mean 99.9%? Having read the context, I wonder about both the 99.9% figure and whether he meant it literally. Fg2 (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This statement of Alters should be in quotes. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We cannot know for sure what Brian Alters meant, but his statement is pretty accurate from all we can determine. Look at level of support for evolution, for example.--Filll (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You should stick in a link to that. DrKiernan (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It used to be there, but I guess it was removed in all the revisions.--Filll (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: there are unreferenced paragraphs. --Brískelly

The decision was made to minimize the number of references in the article to make it more accessible. We can of course put a huge number of references in the article, just as are found in evolution or intelligent design. However, this was viewed as inappropriate for an introductory article.--Filll (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope that FA director is aware of your random votes on a variety of articles in which you "vote" without any apparent awareness of the procedure or the actual articles themselves. A scan of the Featured Article page will find your name over and over with the same comment. There are over 50 citation in this article. Please understand that this is a serious process; where criticism are respected; however, they should be well founded.--Random Replicator (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what you think needs to be referenced and why using the principles outlined in WP:V and Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) There are now nearly 70 references in an effort to address your specific concern. I am requesting that you specifically respond to these revision in citation numbers in order for me to determine if you are still in opposition and if possible, perhaps you could be more specific. Thanks for your input. --Random Replicator (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I realize it will be difficult to follow-up to each of the 50+ articles that you have reviewed since dropping in here; but I am certain that myself and likely the other writers of the 13 articles you critique, during a three hours time span, would appreciate a follow-up to determine if we have complied to your concerns sufficiently to remove that oppose, which has both inspired and frustrated the numerous editors on the numerous articles in which you have shared your vision of a FA worthy entry. I am sure that your comments are playing through the minds of those who take your words to heart; and recognize your good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. Is there not a system in place to flag these things? (sigh)--Random Replicator (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Has not revisited, requested twice.[2][3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments "Darwin incorrectly deduced that heritable traits were a product of the environment" I'm not familiar with that: I think that is counter-intuitive for someone ignorant, and could do with a citation. "The theory of evolution is the foundation of nearly all research conducted in biology" seems rather over-blown. "This has been well documented in the orchid family." example please, or cite a review. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Deleted the orchid comment... a million options I should have cited ... but frankly it seemed to be just hanging there with no real direction. Thank you.--Random Replicator (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your specific concerns --- I know Darwin had no explanation for the source of variations; I will dig farther to see how that morphed into his agreement on LaMarckism. Your specific concerns are appreciated and valued. General statements that it "needs more citations" contribute little when clearly the Introduction to Evolution Article has tons of citations (60 lines of referenced information). Frankly I would not cite the line: The earth orbits the sun. Some information in an encyclopedia is held to standard by "peer review" --- citing every line sounds like an over reaction to criticisms raised by "World Book" readers. It would make this entry cumbersome to read at best. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to concern:"It is even more interesting to note that, although Darwin tried to refute the Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance, he later admitted that the heritable effects of use and disuse might be important in evolution. In the Origin of Species he wrote that the vestigial eyes of moles and of cave-dwelling animals are probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided perhaps by natural selection."[4] I will add the required citation thank you. --Random Replicator (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Response "The theory of evolution serves as the foundation for much of the research conducted in biology, including molecular biology, paleontology, and taxonomy." Toned it down just a tad --- this is not over-blown; hopefully it still emphasizes the importance of evolutionary theory in biology.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support My concerns are addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Needs extensive copyediting and more citations. Kaldari (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What copyediting do you propose? Also, as stated above, the reason that there are so few references is that this is an introductory article. Compared to Introduction to general relativity, which is an FA, we actually have a higher density of references.--Filll (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Same question --- "extensive copyediting" --- seriously? This entry has been in the making for over a year. It has been copy-edited by a group of very talented individuals with extensive knowledge in English grammar. I've had this thing analyzed by college professors. We deliberated over every word in it. If there are grammar /sentence structure errors then they are from recent edits. As to content. There is no way that information that is obviously incorrect would last 2 secs. on that subject. It is monitored constantly by a large number of informed, passionate people, who constantly need to address the misconceptions on Evolution. Mis-information is challenged before the ink dries. A general --- knee-jerk --- oppose that lacks specificity is somewhat perplexing. Is it the topic itself that is the source of such vague criticism?--Random Replicator (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional references have been added --- roughly 50 which is excessive for an introductory article --- again I ask, what copy-edits would you like me to address?--Random Replicator (talk)

Kaldari, my friend, you know better than that! :) Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Article has been significantly improved since my objection through copyediting and numerous source additions. Changing to Support. Kaldari (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm not too fond of the "Summary" section. As it's written, it reads like one of those dreaded "In conclusion" paragraphs to a high school essay. First person plural should really never be used in encyclopedic prose (I saw this elsewhere in the article, too). "Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories ever produced..." <-- Hagiographic sentence that serves really no purpose.
• Since this is being written for high school students (primarily), the conclusion will be comfortingly familiar to them and will reinforce the major concepts of the article. I see nothing wrong with that.
• Apparently "we" is acceptable in science articles (I saw this in the WP:MOS somewhere once).
• I believe the hagiographic sentence is there to counterbalance the challenges made to evolution in the United States where a minority of the population accepts it. It is, therefore, sadly necessary. Awadewit | talk 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Like first person plural, second person should really be avoided in an encyclopedia article.
• I agree - it is fixed. Awadewit | talk 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Please fix your inline referencing format per MOS. The "[#]"s should go immediately after punctuation with no space (though there should be space after the ref). I saw various creative styles employed, including one where the ref was sandwiched between two periods.
• "when the environment changes, most species fail to adapt" I don't think "most" is the best word here.
• When citing books, please give the page number. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I get the credit for the in front / in back of the periods issue. I applied templates to all the citations; a rather extensive process and no doubt moved the original placements. A quick and painless fix --- as compared to actually verifying and applying template. Thank you. I will also address this problem "Hagiographic" as soon as I get a chance to look up the word and determine its meaning! Again, thank you for your detailed concerns which will lead to improvement.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the Evolution entry and noticed that none of the textbooks include page numbers. It is featured. Was that an oversight on there part? Also; extinction is the norm when environmental changes occur; however, would "many" be in the direction that would elevate this concern?--Random Replicator (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was an oversight or not, but I thought it was just common practice (not just on Wiki, but in academia) that when citing specific facts/quotations from a book, you give the page number where it's from. See the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it. "Many" probably wouldn't elevate my concern, but it might alleviate it. :) I also noticed that ref number 4 is missing the title of the work. Overall though, my biggest concern is the Summary section, and the use of first/second person in the article. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) "elevate" That is why they only let me watch and not actually type anything! That line has been revised per your suggestion. They did let me add the title "Biology" to the Campbell / Reese Text. Thanks--Random Replicator (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally got a chance to look up the word. Revisit the summary and see if the re-write addressed that concern by "toning down" a bit. Thanks.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose; I had to fix a major factual error (Darwin rejected Lamarckism; this was part of his major leap in understanding, and yet the article incorrectly asserted that he embraced it, then sourced it to a source which specifically says he rejected it) and I'm sure there are others in there. Moreover, I went through and removed half a dozen "in fact" and "in reality"s, and the article's overall prose is just not up to snuff. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is even more interesting to note that, although Darwin tried to refute the Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance, he later admitted that the heritable effects of use and disuse might be important in evolution. In the Origin of Species he wrote that the vestigial eyes of moles and of cave-dwelling animals are "probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided perhaps by natural selection."This is the source --- are we reading the same thing?--Random Replicator (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there were 3 In facts and 1 In reality which = 4. Where 1/2 dozen = 6. But who is counting. If that was your concern ... then you yourself fixed them --- so why is that a problem to list here? I'm not sure I understand this process. You identified a problem ... fixed it ... then declare it a problem after the fact. "I'm sure there are others in there"... I not sure how to respond to that as a concern?--Random Replicator (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The revision has introduced a new unsourced error. Darwin clearly accepted "use and disuse heritability", as refd. Desmond, A. & Moore, J. (1991) Darwin Penguin Books p.617 "Darwin was loathe to let go of the notion that a well-used and strengthened organ could be inherited" He didn't agree with Lamarck's ideas of "besoin" for change and of progressive improvements, but his Pangenesis theory was an unsuccessful attempt to provide a mechanism for inheritance of variations, including acquired characteristics. After Darwin's death August Weismann proposed the "Weismann barrier" in opposition to what was then called neo-Lamarckism. .. dave souza, talk 13:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Ok, that's the correct statement that Darwin accepted as fact the idea that heritable traits were a product of use and disuse reintroduced with three new references, and the paragraph revised to make the point clearer. .. dave souza, talk 21:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment My objection on factual accuracy has been more or less met; I think their reading of the section is most likely correct and mine wrong. However, my oppose remains, mostly on the grounds of it just not being as well-written as I think a FA should be (overall quality of prose). Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you give some specific examples of this? I have just copy edited the article today and while I don't think the article is poetic, I do think it is as clearly written as these things can be. However, if you have suggestions for improvement, I know that the editors would welcome them. Saying that the writing just isn't as good as other FAs isn't particularly helpful - how can the editors fix that? Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I noticed that you checked off your concerns on Talk, both the factual concern and concern that it is not well written; yet the oppose remains. Were there other concerns or does this still stand on the more general opinion of it being short of FA standard?--Random Replicator (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support, it provides a good introduction to a complex concept which is prone to misunderstandings. .. dave souza, talk 13:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The mission statement for this article was to serve as a transition between the simple Wikipedia and the Main article on Evolution. It would be easy to riddle the text with PMID references as primary sources; which are easy to cite and format. However, we opted for more laymen secondary sources such as National Geographic and PBS websites. They are beastly to cite and thus do not make for a nice clean reference section as appears in the Evolution article. However, in my opinion they serve the reader much more than an abstract from a complex journal. The article is heavily cited; with the exception of the summary, which is a restatement of the prior (cited) material. --Random Replicator (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think of it as the planetary model of the atom-evolution page. :) Awadewit | talk 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Titanium Dragon is wrong to say that there is an error about Lamarckism, and it is unfair to suggest with no evidence that he/she is "sure there are many other" errors. In fact the article correctly asserts that Darwin (in effect) embraced Lamarckism. See the article's talk page and recent edits (including references) to the article! So where are these other errors? In the absence of evidence, I wonder if Titanium Dragon would care to withdraw this point? Snalwibma (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on references. I am somewhat disappointed to see so many people's knee-jerk "not enough references for FA status" remarks above. It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate for an introductory article to contain only a small number of references. It is meant to be easy to read and accessible, and references get in the way of this, making it appear undigestible and hard work. What is wrong with keeping the references to a minimum, and instead relying on links to other WP articles, where the reader can find both more detail and as many references as he/she wants? Snalwibma (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Temporary Oppose - The references annoy me. I personally think books make lousy reference sources, unless there's a good quote to be used. Almost everything written in a textbook or other scholarly books is a review, so the original source is EASILY found. I don't like inconsistent referencing either. I'll help out. I'm anal about references. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But this is an introductory article, and it is much better to send the reader of such an article to a good textbook review rather than to some arcane original research in a journal. Just a thought. Snalwibma (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My only problem with the use of the textbooks is that they are not online accessable. I would rather have used only sources that can be access with a direct link. My beef with the Evolution ref. is that it is almost exclusively journals which cannot be accessed without memberships. At best you get an abstract. This gave the article credibility and made for a clean, confident look; but provides little in the way of additional information. Maybe there is a compromise in here somewhere.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not sources are available to be read online should have no bearing on whether or not they are appropriate citations. We should use the best sources available, not the most accessable sources. Kaldari (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Wikipedia needs to establish credibility by citing excellent reliable sources, agreed. In our case; however, the entry was designed to increase access to a complex concept via a transition article. Everything in here is general knowledge. Our approach has been to basically use citations as a tool to open doors to even more general "laymen" type web resources. For example: [5][6][7] I didn't mean to suggest that they have to be web accessable; I'm just saying for our audience in an Introductory Article there is merit to doing so if it opens new resources for general readers. Face it, they are not going to go locate the Journal of Evolutionary Biology; however a cool web cite like National Geographic or PBS may be meaningful. The entire Evolution page is sourced from high level journals. It bespeaks of credibility; but it offers nothing to the general reader. What I see as a strength of our entry; at least by some, is seen as a weakness. --Random Replicator (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I'm moving to oppose. Here are some of my reasons. Although I am a stickler for references, I understand that I am more anal about it than certain editors. However, I do expect consistency in the references, and there just isn't. Some are badly written, and I am endeavoring to fix those. There are too many books, which are impossible to verify. Books should be in Further reading or something similar. Each book has a corresponding peer-reviewed article. Lastly, the article requires some significant copyediting. I use this guide for copyediting. I have also asked User:SandyGeorgia to take some time in editing the article. I am attacking the frequent redundancies in the article. But this article requires a lot of work. But with some focused copyediting, we can get there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to add a statement here on the above comment: There are too many books, which are impossible to verify. - This is not an actionable comment (nothing in WP:V or WP:RS supports this line of reasoning). The rest of the comments are, of course, actionable. Awadewit | talk 00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. "There are too many books, which are impossible to verify:" this is hyperbole of the silly sort. Part of it resembles the criticism of Mozart - too many notes - and the other part is asinine. I know Orangemarlin you are fixing problems as you see them, which is good, but I'm afraid your book comment is going to be a favorite example of mine to demonstrate Wikipedia weirdness. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for personal attack. It must be YOUR article, so I'll leave it alone. This isn't going to pass FAC, and I'll pass along your rude remark to those that care about these things. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Books should be cited in the reference section the same as any other verifiable source. We certainly should not avoid citing books and there is not a corresponding peer review article for every book. As for The Origin of Species and (in)consistency, on some points it makes a vast difference which edition you read. --Una Smith (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am a bit dismayed by the tone that this FAC has taken. Any pages dealing with evolution are a challenge to take on and the editors should be commended for their efforts. I know that they have worked hard over the past few months because I have repeatedly offered what I hope is constructive criticism on this article and they have always taken it graciously. While I cannot yet support this article for FAC (my little list of comments is currently on the article's talk page, I would like to respond to some of the concerns raised here, which did not correlate with mine at all. Mine are largely demands for more explanation and organizational concerns (and I believe the editors will be able to fix these and I will be able to support the article).

The sourcing requirements for this article should follow Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, as Wassupwestcoast appropriately notes. I think that the editors have made an excellent decision in sourcing the article to books accessible to the readership they are writing for. Notes are not just for verification, they are also for further reading. If the notes are all to technical articles and high-level textbooks, we wouldn't be doing our users any favors. The editors of this page have thought so carefully about their audience that they have chosen specific sources for them is something we should marvel at, not condemn.

I am also concerned that some of the beautiful illustrations have disappeared. While initially the page may have had a disorganized layout (I complained about this months ago), the solution to this problem is not the total elimination of illustrations, but the careful selection of the best illustrations. Let us work together! Awadewit | talk 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This probably wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but since I can't see anyone else really talking about the images I wanted to clear up my comment above. I wasn't opposed to any of the images or the number of images in the article. Was it really that unclear? I just thought the introduction area was really cluttered with two images, a template and the table of contents all jammed in there. I think the article would look a little cleaner with just a single image or template and the TOC in the intro area, but that is just my preference so I'm not going to demand that one or the other be moved if you or the other editors disagree. Ben 06:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) How do you think it looks now? I think that having the evolution template in the white space next to the TOC and under the dinosaur image works fine. (By the way, I think there were people on the talk page discussing the images, too - I've lost track now.) Awadewit | talk 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes ...the image concern was not related to your thread.It has been batted about all over the place. Your contributions and your support is greatly appreciated Ben, and sparked some hope that with effort FA concerns can be resolved. Thanks.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks much better now the introduction has been fleshed out and filled some of the whitespace. Good luck. Ben 14:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support My concerns have been addressed. While I cannot speak to the scientific accuracy of this article (I have asked TimVickers to provide us with an outside scientific peer review on that point, if anyone is interested), I can speak to its reading level, comprehensiveness, and prose. For comparison, I picked up an "introduction to evolution" pamphlet at the bookstore to see whether we were covering the major topics (and we were, with a few optional choices, in my opinion). The prose is at an appropriate reading level for competent high-schools students (the article's audience) and, while not poetic (what on wikipedia is?), clearly explains the concepts. Kudos to the editors. Awadewit | talk 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment (part I):
  • I would favour bolding "evolution" at the start of the article, but that's neither here nor there

Done--Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm not thrilled with the first sentence - it seems a bit clumsy. Also, it stresses speciation - while that's a crucial point to make, it misses the point that evolution is a continuous process, while species are arbitrary points that we assign to continua.

Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Second sentence says that evolution has "has transformed the first species" into "a large number of different species". That just doesn't capture the millions (of eukaryotic) or billions (of prokaryotic) species that have originated from this common ancestor (or group of ancestors).

Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Third sentence - "this process" or "these processes"? Shouldn't we speak about "processes"?

Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Fourth sentence - there's too much of a jump from evolutionary biology to Mendel and DNA.

Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Second paragraph - there is no single theory of evolution - there's a body of theory that is evolutionary biology.
  • The second paragraph should be combined into the first. The current arrangement overvalues molecular biology, undervalues palaeontology and taxonomy, and leaves out biogeography, which was the key bit that clued Darwin in, and also is probably the most intuitively understandable. Guettarda (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done specific comments to the above on discussion page if you care to follow-up--Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment (part II):
  • The section "Darwin's idea" makes no mention of Wallace; I think that's a major deficiency. The final paragraph could start with a mention of (and link to) Wallace.

Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• • The first paragraph of "Mendel's contribution" goes into unnecessary detail. An introductory article needs a clear statement that Darwin lacked a theory of inheritance (but still did a pretty good job). Losing everything after the third paragraph would substantially improve the section, although the second to last sentence ("Darwin produced an unsuccessful theory...") might be worth keeping to close off the paragraph.

Done (dramatic improvements to this section) thank you --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• • The second paragraph of "Mendel's contribution" could be clearer - the statement that "heredity works by reshuffling and recombining factors" isn't going to make much sense to someone who doesn't know this stuff already. Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done specific comments to the above on discussion page if you care to follow-up--Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment (part III):
  • The section on the modern synthesis is misleading. The modern synthesis was not born of the discovery of DNA - it came from the integration of Mendel with Darwin. It came from the work of Fisher, Haldane, Huxley, etc. What these people did, before the discovery of the role of DNA, was to transform evolution into a viable modern science. The section totally misses the point - it talks about the Galapagos, progression and the KT. The section should start with the final sentence, and work from there.

Done --- very much improved--Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• • The image used in the "Species" section is a poor choice. The truly amazing diversification of cichlids is among the East African Rift Valley haplochromines. This is where we have hundreds of species originating from a handful of ancestors (one per lake?) in a few thousand years. The image is of an example of a group of hybrids of Central American species, probably Cichlasoma spp. Central American Cichlasomas are fairly diverse, but they show just average diversity for tropical species. The hybrids show high rates of deformity, which is likely to be a distraction. While there don't seem to be a lot of good pix of Haplochromis spp. (this and this are the only ones I could find), Mbunas show a similar, if not quite so overwhelming, pattern of diversification (and there are lots of good pix there).

Interestingly, I have had email exchanges with Dr. Walter Salzburger, a cichlid guru; who I was seeking confirmation on the general accuracy of that section. He is to provide me with more current examples from his studies in Lake Victoria cichlids. But until then, I am open for any picture with strong visual appeal.--Random Replicator (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• • The section "Different perspectives on the mechanism of evolution" might be better terms "Perspectives on the mechanism of evolution". Obviously they are going to be different, or we wouldn't have a separate section. Guettarda (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done --Random Replicator (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This list is being addressed on the discussion page!--Random Replicator (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly sure I have addressed your concerns; will you be responding here or at the discussion page so that I might make modifications as needed to these very beneficial concerns? Thank you for a meaningful critique!--Random Replicator (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This is thorough, it is readable and it is interesting. Even the hated info box seems to provide a valuable service here. The author clearly understands the subject and the text seems confident (that sounds daft but I know what I mean). I don't see any good reasons why this can't be promoted to FA. Giano (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The article is splendid already, and editors can tweak it to their heart's content just as easily after granting it the FA star as before. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose The editors are having a difficult time reaching consensus without belittling others interested in the article. The article is limited to eukaryotic evolution, but the outline box is about evolution in general. This introduces a type of inaccuracy that should not be present in an introductory article. Evolution biologists have been able to discuss and disagree with each other and reach consensus on teaching for a long time. Wikipedia writers should try to do this without personally attacking others who have ideas that differ from their own on an article's discussion page. With editing at this level, resorting to belittling editors who disagree, the article will be a problem when it's on the Main Page. I changed to strong opposed. The supports are not reading the discussion page, the comment to me defending a discussion about my having a "chip on my shoulder" and that my writing "gibberish' are not personal attacks is evidence that the discussion page is not about the article. Upgrade oppose. It seems that any disagreement with the article will be a major problem and gain an army of attackers. --Amaltheus (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sink, imo--update my very strong oppose Although it may have just been an editing error, probably was in fact, there was a copy vio added to the article where almost two full lines of distinctive text from a major researcher were used without quotation marks.[8][9] I think the article needs thoroughly checked for other inappropriately or improperly used text, particularly when it is aimed at younger readers. IMO this simply has to be done for the entire article before it should be featured on the front page, as this could be embarrassing for Wikipedia and reflect poorly on all of our evolutionary biology articles. This is too strong of a potential bad influence on young readers, also, imo. --Amaltheus (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

<discussion on copyvio moved to talk page>

Some specific issues with just the first two paragraphs. There are plenty more:

• "These new features—called traits—are almost always minor. "Old features are also called traits. This definition of trait is wrong.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Scientists call this process natural selection." Other people also call the process natural selection. In fact, that's what the process is called, not just by scientists.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Over time, the favorable trait will become common in the descendents of the creatures."

The traits don't have to become common, they just become more common.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Over many generations, new traits accumulate in a population to the degree that scientists recognize it as a new species.[1]"

Again, this occurs in the absence of scientists. In fact, it has occurred for a lot longer in the absence than in the presence of scientists.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The result of four billion years of evolution is the diversity of life around us. According to the United Nations' Global Biodiversity Assessment, an estimated 1.75 million different species are alive today. [2][3]"

Lost and unrelated sentences disrupt the flow of the information in the article.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, especially the natural processes that account for the variety of creatures, both alive today and long extinct. "

Scientists use "diversity" so it would be a better choice here than "variety."

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(Sentence restructures) "The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. " This implies that Darwin's contributions have been superceded. They haven't been.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants."

He's hardly next if he started his experiments before Darwin published "On the Origins of Species."

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "His research helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics."

It's splitting hairs, but this implies that the explanation for genetic inheritence was contemporaneous with Mendel, which would make it around the time of Darwin. This is incorrect. It also implies that Mendel introduced the idea of genetics, but this is not correct, as his research was ignored by most scientists in his lifetime.

• "This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance.[4]"

This puts it contemporaneous with Mendel. This is wrong. It's early 20th century, and Mendel was mid-nineteenth.

• "The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in creatures."

This leap ignores the modern synthesis, which is the foundation for evolutionary biology and genetics today. It's like going through the history of Western Civilization and ignoring the Roman Empire.

• "Scientists better understand speciation or the development of new species from ancestral species because of modern research."

What is modern research? The most interesting insights into speciation today rely heavily upon ancient research rather than just modern molecular genetics, in fact, the kind of research that Darwin did and Wallace did better: observation. It's ancient, not modern.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Research by scientists in many different fields supports evolution."

No, it provides evidence that supports the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The planet earth supports evolution.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

--- section moved to discussion page ----

• "Patterns in the geographical distribution of species and their fossil predecessors convinced Charles Darwin that each had developed from similar ancestors, and in 1838, he formulated an explanation known as natural selection. [5] Darwin's explanation of the mechanism of evolution relied on his theory of natural selection, a theory developed from the following observations:[6]"

• "Predecessor" is an unnecessary and awkward replacement for ancestors. It's really about the distribution of extant species (or living) and the distribution of related species in the fossil records. This can and should be said much more simply.

• "Darwin deduced that the production of more offspring than the environment could support led inevitably to a struggle for existence."

This comes from his reading Malthus. This is something studied by the 7th or 8th grade in many Western schools and shouldn't be shied away from with a link and name.

• "Was a particular trait a benefit or a hindrance to the survival and the reproductive success of an individual in a particular environment?" Unencyclopediac to speculatively address the reader in this manner. Just make statements. It sounds artificial.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "For example, Darwin observed a reciprocal relationship between orchids and insects which ensures successful pollination of the plant."

• It's not a "reciprocal relationship" as "reciprocal" has a specific meaning in genetics, and cannot be used as a handy synonym for something else. And it's not a "reciprocal relationship" or "reciprocal evolution" you are talking about. It's coevolution.

• "Despite the appearance of design, flower parts in the orchid had evolved from ordinary parts that usually perform different functions."

Poorly constructed sentence. What is being said is, "In spite of the elaborate appearance of the orchid its specialized parts evolved from the same basic structures as other flowers."

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Darwin was still researching and experimenting with his ideas on natural selection when he received a letter from Alfred Wallace enclosing the manuscript of a theory that was essentially the same as his own, and he agreed to immediate joint publication of both theories."

Did he agree? I thought he suggested it.

There are just too many problems with the article. --Amaltheus (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire section is absurd for an introductory article, it is far beyond what I got in my introductory evolution course (a junior level college course):

Note: Section was on barriers to speciation: See Article to review section. No need to copy/paste the entire thing here. I hope. --Random Replicator (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

SEE ARTICLE TO VIEW THE SECTION

This section is just too much for an introduction. I suggest that barriers that prevent fertilization simply be barriers to breeding. Mountain ranges, oceans and deserts are barriers to breeding between members of a species that can lead to speciation in a population. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in organisms."

• Again, there seems to be a missing fundamental insight into the timeline, the Mendel comment is bound to confuse and misinform readers (because Mendel was doing his research before Darwin published On the Origins of Species saying that Mendel is the next step makes it seem as if he came after), as much as this comment will. Featured articles should be all about informing and in no means about misinforming. Population genetics was part of what gave modern biology the modern synthesis, it's not something contemporaneous with Watson and Crick. This lack of a fundamental timeline for the study of evolution from the articel causes confusion and mix ups in the writing and is difficult to understand. Darwin, Mendel at the same time, but rediscovered with the genes and fruit flies in early twentieth century, leading to population genetics, modern synthesis, Watson and Crick, up to modern molecular genetics. Sex is apparently a detail worthy of a Ph. D., but "hybrid breakdowns" aren't too much, and accurately moving in the same time line that the development of today's modern evolutionary biology moved in is also, apparently, too much of a detail, while zedonk parentage is not. An introductory college evolutionary biology text would be a useful guideline to understand the weight and importance of various aspects of today's evolutionary biology to understand its development. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• To understand the mechanisms that allow a population to evolve, it is useful to consider a hypothetical non-evolving population. ... It is very rare for natural populations to experience no change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation."

The section on Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is completely and entirely out of place in the article and the authors fail to tie it in to the prior section, introductory, in the Population genetics portion of the article, and fail to tie it into the following section. It serves no purpose in the article, and the concept is not an introductory concept in evolution. In particular, if the authors can't tie the topic into the section itself and can't lead from the prior section to the topic, then follow-up about the topic, it shouldn't be there. It's as if the discussion is Ford Motor Cars, starts with a paragraph on Henry Ford, moves on to discuss John Glenn, then closes with a section on the assembly line. "From a genetic viewpoint, evolution is a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool." The first sentence of this section is particularly problematic. Uh, evolution is emphatically not the "generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles" within a population. Even this introductory to evolution article doesn't claim that anywhere else in the article. The frequency of alleles in a population may change all of the time due to many factors. For example, if there is a hurricane and only one animal of the population survives, the frequency of alleles is now whatever that animal has. The only living moth is black. Is that evolution? Not according to any definition given in this article. In fact, if it is a non-breeding female, it's extinction. This is a bad sentence. A very bad sentence. Evolution and extinction are not the same thing. There should be no sentences in this article showing that it is. Are there populations that don't share a common gene pool? We have a clue to the answer to this question in a later sentence in the same paragraph: "A gene pool is the complete set of alleles in a single population." It seems that if the complete set of alleles in a single population is its gene pools, this is, in fact, evidence that, by definition, they "share a common gene pool." The third paragraph of this section starts with this mind-boggler: "Frequencies of alleles in a gene pool typically change, resulting in evolution of populations over successive generations." So, the populations evolve and evolve over successive generations just because the frequencies of alleles typically change? I thnk that the Hardy-Weinberg section was saying something different about this. Evolution isn't a necessary, forward momentum process that just occurs with time, as random mutations cause changes from one generatin to the next in gene pools. This whole section seems to be first emphasizing the null hypothesis, and, second, showing that evolution occurs from each generation to the next. I know my grandpa is the same species as I am.

Done--- it is gone --- --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire section appears to be written in a disjointed fashion without comprehension by the authors of the overall structure of population genetics and its relationship to evolution. It should be removed from the article rather than rewritten. --Amaltheus (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• • ( please see the talk page for discussion of the above comment) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

    I've copied it to Talk:Introduction to evolution#A helpful critique from Amaltheus for use in improving the article, it may be appropriate to treat that as a move and delete it from this page. .. dave souza, talk 14:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    • No need to move it. These are direct problems with the article that should be considered before promotion to FA status and I will be posting more here. --Amaltheus (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

*Object I note the discussion above regarding creationism and my object is wholly founded in this area. Evolution is a theory which is accepted by the vast majority of science, and indeed probably the vast majority of humanity. However, unlike flat-earthers the controversy and opposition to it is (the important thing for a WP Featured Article) notable. I think that the treatment of the opposition need (in fact should) not be over-egged in an "Introduction" article, but it shouldn't be omitted altogether as it currently effectively is. In a similar vein, I'd expect an Introduction to Global Warming article to include reference to the fact that this is not an uncontroversial topic and give a clear marker for those interested in reading more about the arguments. This is a nomination for a Featured Article. Such articles must espouse our highest possible standards, one of which is comprehensiveness. I think this is easily fixed, in probably no more than two or three sentences, perhaps, to keep things on-topic and NPOV, focussing on key arguments used by opponents of the theory that aren't used by critics who support the theory. I suggest the article puts forward apparent shortcomings in evolutionary theory, rather than a discursus explaining creationism or any other ism. Perhaps that's not the best way to treat it, but it can't just be relegated to a {{for}} or {{main}} tag. And while it is, I need to object to an excellent article. If fixed, I'd need to review the article in more depth but it does look like an otherwise FA quality article at first reading. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Question - I assume you mean that the reference to wide acceptance at the end of the lead section, combined with the clear link to Objections to evolution in the summary, is not sufficient. Is it not? I cannot see, however, what the "apparent shortcomings" you refer to might be. Snalwibma (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Correct. First, the link in the lead is obfuscation - it talks about agreement yet links to opposition. Someone looking through the article for objection will not find it (as indeed happened to me). Secondly, the lead should summarise issues discussed by the article, as per WP:LEAD. The article does not discuss opposition to the theory itself. And finally, as I stated above, including a {{main}} or {{for}} tag is insufficient. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We removed this sort of stuff from evolution, and that helped it to reach FA. We removed this sort of material from this article and that helped it to reach GA. The controversy material is more political and has zero to do with science. So we put it in special controversy articles. And that has worked much better, frankly.--Filll (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll - this is neither a science encyclopedia, nor is this a "science" article. It's entitled "Introduction to evolution". So either introduce it comprehensively or don't seek Featured status. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

An "introduction to evolution" is an introduction to what scientists think evolution is. When the evolution editors were working at achieving consensus on this issue, they drew up a helpful FAQ which answers many of these questions (see Talk:Evolution/FAQ#Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?). This article directs people, via links, to subarticles on the controversy over evolution (which is an entirely different topic than the subject of evolution itself). The article discusses the different modern theories regarding the mechanism of evolution. This is the most responsible and scientifically accurate way to approach the material. Awadewit | talk 10:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't define what the reader wants/needs/expects from an article. Just because you say it's "an introduction to what scientists think evolution is" doesn't make it so. See my comments below. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't the reader that defines the article - it is the experts. Scientists define the scope of evolution. The topic of this article is "introduction to evolution". It is indeed true that there have been controversies over evolution (both historical and contemporary), but those topics are political and religious and bring in the opinions of many others besides scientists. That is a different topic that is covered in other articles. Awadewit | talk 11:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true. If experts defined the article it'd be full of incomprehensible jargon, for one thing. Experts write for the audience. And this is not a scientific journal. It's an encyclopedia. Consider how bonkers it would be for an "Introduction to creationism" article not to mention that there's controversy about creationism and that there's this theory called evolution. The editors of that article would no doubt be indignant, but they'd be wrong to think it's comprehensive without mentioning notable opposition. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But there are already plenty of references to the controversy in the article. There are links to pretty much all the articles dealing with the topic (Objections to evolution, Creation-evolution controversy, etc.). What more do you want? Snalwibma (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's examine whethere the following words appear at all in the body text of the article:

opposition - occurrences: 0

disagree - occurrences: 0

Creationism - occurrences: 0

controv(ersy / ersial etc) - occurrences - 1 (relating to response in Darwin's time, so not relevant here)

objection - occurences: 1 (I'll address this below)

As I've said, it's not enough to dismiss notable opposition with just a main tag, and the one usage of "objection" is in a Summary section. Well, isn't a Summary usually, erm, a summary of what's been discussed?

What I'm looking for is a brief, honest note in an appropriate place in the article to the fact that there is notable opposition to evolution. Probably two or three sentences. Possibly one if well written and in an appropriate place. (The Global warming FA does with a wikilinked half a sentence in its Lead (!), with a main tag lower down, under an appropriate heading. Not sure about that, as Lead usually summarises the article, but you get my point.) I'm not looking for a treatise on Creationism; it would be inappropriate here.

Incidentally, the one relevant main tag you have is in an inappropriate place, as I don't believe that Creation-evolution controversy is really about "Perspectives on the mechanism of evolution", but rather a perspective on the fundamentals of the theory, rather than how it works ("mechanics"). --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

cross posting from User talk:Random Replicator

Gosh, what a can of worms for what I thought would be fairly straightforward to address.

I don't really mind how my objection would/could be addressed (I suggested a methodology, but if it doesn't work, that's fine), but I would expect that the introduction article to any scientific theory that had notable opposition (and boy is it notable) should at least mention the opposition, or it is dishonest.

Wikipedia's role is not to decide what is "Truth" or "Right" or "Good for 14 year olds", but to be a mirror of the world we live in. And there is opposition to this theory, even if scientists the world over regard that as barmy.

The controversy over evolution affects school curricula the world over. It fills our newspapers. It's the subject of countless TV documentaries. And it's obviously something that both scientists and clerics spend a lot of time fruitlessly trying to win unwinnable arguments about.

So any article seeking to fulfil the criterion of comprehensiveness needs to mention the controversy.

I'm surprised people disagree with this.

It's hard for me to debate on the talk page without stoking up the temperature - there already seem to be quite a few editors there with hot tempers and I'm not looking for controversy, just to see an article reach our highest values before it passes FA.

If you wanted, we could work in a sandbox on some wording, but I think from the looks of the article talk page that we're not ready to do that yet.

--Dweller (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what is your objection to using the "See also" section? You started this with asking for scientific opposition, but as discussed on the articles talk page there is none from the "teach the controversy" perspective. Now you seem to be asking for the political perspective? As someone mentioned on the articles talk page, look at other wikipedia articles and what types of criticisms are present in our FA articles. Does the Islam article have a criticism section from the Christian perspective, let alone the scientific perspective? David D. (Talk) 17:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for something like Evolution#Social_and_cultural_views in the FA Evolution article, only shorter and simpler, befitting an Introduction to... article. I'm in discussion with some of the key editors of the article and hopefully we'll soon have something that can be taken forward with consensus. Sorry to be a fly in the ointment, but I simply feel that the opposition to evolution is so notable that it must be mentioned. --Dweller (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to be a bearer of bad news, but as a result of your agitation, the article was just scrubbed and the discussion of the controversy was reduced even further and relegated to one or two links. So, sometimes there is a law of unintended consequences. I would have favored the material at least being mentioned and integrated in, but because of the trouble you caused, others lost patience. Sad.--Filll (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the changes I made were not because I lost patience with Dweller but because I thought they improved the article. Before Dweller brought up these points i had not considered these points more than briefly. The edits I made were after more careful consideration on my part and after reading the input from other users on the talk page. I believe the "See also" section is the right place for this information where a reader is directed to the articles in wikipedia that give a full perspective, rather than a one liner in this article that seems forced. David D. (Talk) 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Switched to Support - my objection has been addressed. Excellent article. Kudos to the collaborators. --Dweller (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support I support the article overall. My concern is that it is addresses subjects that should be addressed in the parent Evolution article-like a Population Genetics section. It also addresses some subjects in fair detail for an introductory article, which I would rather see it in the Evolution article-like the speciation section. I suggest addressing some of the issues in the parent Evolution article and then address it in basic terms here. I guess I would like to see it more parallel the Evo article but just a "simple" version. Really a suggestion more than a criticism, and it does it to a significant degree. I think it a daunting task to write a "simple" or "introductory" version of a subject like Evolution because of the difficulty in translating correct and accurate scientific terminology into something palatable for the novice.I could argue I would have stated somethings differently but I think that is just personal preference. I should state again that this intro article incorporates images,uses examples, and covers topics that should be addressed also in the parent Evo article. Good job.GetAgrippa (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fixes needed; I left a list on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I've watched this article develop from the beginning, adding a few things here and there. Despite the critics above I have no problem supporting this for FA. I think the authors have bent over backwards to try and accommodate many different perspectives. There have been some unfortunate clashes but none i believe significant enough to jeopardise the stability of the article. It represent an enjoyable read and a great launching pad for further investigation. I have no doubt this will be the first stop for very many new wikipedians, i think it will be a pleasant surprise for the skeptics of this encyclopedia and may well attract more quality editors inspired by this article. Very well done to the primary authors. David D. (Talk) 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• The sources need seriously checked The introductory section has this sentence "The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants, which helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics. This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance.[2]" tied to the reference "^ a b Wyhe, John van (2002). Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist. The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online. University of Cambridge. Retrieved on 2008-01-16." This puts Mendel contemporaneous with Darwin (which he was), but calls Mendel "the next important step," while referencing him inside of Darwin. This reference makes even less sense than the entire timeline in these two paragraphs.
  • What? --Amaltheus (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • However speciation has been observed in present day organisms, and past speciation events are recorded in fossils.[45][46][47] These references tie first to a page that doesn't have the word fossil on it, then to an article about a modern pre-speciation event "hawthorn (Crataegus spp.)-infesting races of Rhagoletis pomonella," and a laboratory experiment showing speciation. If the sentence is about the fossil record, the references should be, too. Or the references moved to the first part, or the second half of the sentence removed, or a reference dealing directly with speciation events in the fossil record being added. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • With regard to the references the cites in the LEAD were incorrect as they were absent and thus pointed to the incorrect citations (I corrected it). Thanks for noting the mistake. Second the sentence says "in present day organisms" as well as "recorded in fossils". Your complaint should not be that the references are incorrect but rather incomplete. One at least should be about fossils. Rather than complaining here, why not find one and help the process along, or mention this omission on the talk page? David D. (Talk) 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Edit: I struck out some text that was an incorrect interpretation due to lazy reading on my behalf. I completely misread the comment by [User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] David D. (Talk) 06:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • That was one of my solutions, as I noted above, simply adding a reference "dealing directly with speciation events in the fossil record." It's not a complaint so much as an issue with the article that needs corrected. When I post on the talk page, my comments get ignored, or not read completely, as appears to be the case with your response to my note above. As I noted above adding a reference could solve the problem with the sentence and you told me my "complaint should not be that the references are incorrect but rather incomplete." I don't ever, in my post, "complain that the references are incorrect," but rather point out that considering the structure of the sentence, the references need to point to its topic. Please, reread what I wrote. It continues to be a source of frustration when bandwidth is used to discuss something that isn't there. I offered up the solution you suggest, already. I didn't "complain that the references are incorrect," I merely pointed out that with that sentence, the references needed reworked, or the sentence reworked, or a reference added. Please, simply read what I write for once. thanks. --Amaltheus (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • You're right, sorry for the drive by posting, I must have skipped over the last bit. Rushing throuhg too many things on my watchlist. David D. (Talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The caption on the homologous structures: "Homologous structures. Note how the same basic structure appears repeatedly in different types of forelimbs of different species." The image shows the typical vertebrate forelimbs (I think, just glanced) above three different birds. Wings on birds aren't homologous so much as they're the same structure. They're all bird wings. The wings of bats and and arms of human beings, the example given in the Wikipedia article on homology are, indeed, homologous structures, more distantly the wings of birds are homologous with the wings of bats and arms of human beings, as are the forelimbs of all vertebrates. The wings of insects and of birds are analagous structures. But we don't usually say that the wings of one species of butterfly are homologous with the wings of another species. This caption should be deleted or the pictures of the birds should be removed from it. --Amaltheus (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Section break

• (Sentence is no longer there) "These new features—called traits—are almost always minor. "Old features are also called traits. This definition of trait is wrong.

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Scientists call this process natural selection."

Other people also call the process natural selection. In fact, that's what the process is called, not just by scientists.

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Over time, the favorable trait will become common in the descendents of the creatures."

The traits don't have to become common, they just become more common.

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Over many generations, new traits accumulate in a population to the degree that scientists recognize it as a new species.[1]"

Again, this occurs in the absence of scientists. In fact, it has occurred for a lot longer in the absence than in the presence of scientists.

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The result of four billion years of evolution is the diversity of life around us. According to the United Nations' Global Biodiversity Assessment, an estimated 1.75 million different species are alive today. [2][3]"
• Lost and unrelated sentences disrupt the flow of the information in the article.

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The new first paragraph is truly excellent, except for the first sentence. It is, with the one exception, well written, accurate, and readable by all. Using simply "Evolution" and bolding it rather than talking about the article "Introduction to Evolution" is a great improvement.

The problem sentence, though: "Evolution is the natural process by which all life changes over generations."

Actually it's the process by why all life accumulates changes over generations (leading to differences, through time, but something along the first part might suffice). All life changes over generations, but all life doesn't evolve due to changing over generations. Again, the people alive today, aren't the same as the folks alive 150 years ago, but human beings haven't evolved in 150 years.

• "Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, especially the natural processes that account for the variety of creatures, both alive today and long extinct. "

Scientists use "diversity" so it would be a better choice here than "variety." Still like diversity better because it's a buzzword in the press.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• (Sentence restructures) "The understanding of evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. "

This implies that Darwin's contributions have been superceded. They haven't been.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The next important step was Gregor Mendel's work with plants."

He's hardly next if he started his experiments before Darwin published "On the Origins of Species."

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "In addition, Gregor Mendel's work with plants helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics."

How about,

"In addition, Gregor Mendel's work with plants helped later scientists to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics."

This makes it unnecessary to explain more about Mendel or to timeline Mendel and early 20th century genetics in the first paragraph while still keeping it strictly accurate, also deals specifically with my issue about the next sentence on mechanisms of inheritance, again while being more accurate, not adding too much depth for the introduction and honoring the timeline.

• "His research helped to explain the hereditary patterns of genetics."

It's splitting hairs, but this implies that the explanation for genetic inheritence was contemporaneous with Mendel, which would make it around the time of Darwin. This is incorrect. It also implies that Mendel introduced the idea of genetics, but this is not correct, as his research was ignored by most scientists in his lifetime.

"This led to an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance.[4]"

This puts it contemporaneous with Mendel. This is wrong. It's early 20th century, and Mendel was mid-nineteenth.

"The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in creatures."

This leap ignores the modern synthesis, which is the foundation for evolutionary biology and genetics today. It's like going through the history of Western Civilization and ignoring the Roman Empire.

(Sentence is no longer there) "Scientists better understand speciation or the development of new species from ancestral species because of modern research." What is modern research? The most interesting insights into speciation today rely heavily upon ancient research rather than just modern molecular genetics, in fact, the kind of research that Darwin did and Wallace did better: observation. It's ancient, not modern.

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Further discoveries on how genes mutate, as well as advances in population genetics explained more details of how evolution occurs."

Is this the correct order?

• "Scientists now have a good understanding of the origin of new species (speciation)."

I'd like to see this tied to a specific source. I took a seminar with one of the world's leading scientists on the issue of species, he wrote one of the most cited papers on the topic. I asked him during the seminar if scientists today understood speciation real well. I asked him because I thought this statement above was true. He said, "How can we be understand speciation if don't understand species?" I'm uneasy about the sentence, but maybe scientists do think they understand species really well 5 years later. I think it needs a reference, also, because it's so definitive.

• "They have observed the speciation process happening both in the laboratory and in the wild."

• Hopefully this is sourced below. Most speciation processes occur at the genetic level, it seems unlikely they've been observed.

• "This modern view of evolution is the principal theory that scientists use to understand life."

Unequivocally and simply, yes.

• (Sentence is no longer there) "Research by scientists in many different fields supports evolution."

No, it provides evidence that supports the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The planet earth supports evolution.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

--- section moved to discussion page ----

• "Patterns in the geographical distribution of species and their fossil predecessors convinced Charles Darwin that each had developed from similar ancestors, and in 1838, he formulated an explanation known as natural selection. [5] Darwin's explanation of the mechanism of evolution relied on his theory of natural selection, a theory developed from the following observations:[6]"

• "Predecessor" is an unnecessary and awkward replacement for ancestors. It's really about the distribution of extant species (or living) and the distribution of related species in the fossil records. This can and should be said much more simply.

• "Darwin deduced that the production of more offspring than the environment could support led inevitably to a struggle for existence."

This comes from his reading Malthus. This is something studied by the 7th or 8th grade in many Western schools and shouldn't be shied away from with a link and name.

• "Was a particular trait a benefit or a hindrance to the survival and the reproductive success of an individual in a particular environment?" Unencyclopediac to speculatively address the reader in this manner. Just make statements. It sounds artificial.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "For example, Darwin observed a reciprocal relationship between orchids and insects which ensures successful pollination of the plant."

• It's not a "reciprocal relationship" as "reciprocal" has a specific meaning in genetics, and cannot be used as a handy synonym for something else. And it's not a "reciprocal relationship" or "reciprocal evolution" you are talking about. It's coevolution.

• "Despite the appearance of design, flower parts in the orchid had evolved from ordinary parts that usually perform different functions."

Poorly constructed sentence. What is being said is, "In spite of the elaborate appearance of the orchid its specialized parts evolved from the same basic structures as other flowers."

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Darwin was still researching and experimenting with his ideas on natural selection when he received a letter from Alfred Wallace enclosing the manuscript of a theory that was essentially the same as his own, and he agreed to immediate joint publication of both theories."

Did he agree? I thought he suggested it.

Done: --Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There are just too many problems with the article. --Amaltheus (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire section is absurd for an introductory article, it is far beyond what I got in my introductory evolution course (a junior level college course):

Note: Section was on barriers to speciation: See Article to review section. No need to copy/paste the entire thing here. I hope. --Random Replicator (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

SEE ARTICLE TO VIEW THE SECTION

This section is just too much for an introduction. I suggest that barriers that prevent fertilization simply be barriers to breeding. Mountain ranges, oceans and deserts are barriers to breeding between members of a species that can lead to speciation in a population. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The discovery of the structure of DNA and advances in the field of population genetics provided insight into the source of variations in organisms."

Again, there seems to be a missing fundamental insight into the timeline, the Mendel comment is bound to confuse and misinform readers (because Mendel was doing his research before Darwin published On the Origins of Species saying that Mendel is the next step makes it seem as if he came after), as much as this comment will. Featured articles should be all about informing and in no means about misinforming. Population genetics was part of what gave modern biology the modern synthesis, it's not something contemporaneous with Watson and Crick. This lack of a fundamental timeline for the study of evolution from the articel causes confusion and mix ups in the writing and is difficult to understand. Darwin, Mendel at the same time, but rediscovered with the genes and fruit flies in early twentieth century, leading to population genetics, modern synthesis, Watson and Crick, up to modern molecular genetics. Sex is apparently a detail worthy of a Ph. D., but "hybrid breakdowns" aren't too much, and accurately moving in the same time line that the development of today's modern evolutionary biology moved in is also, apparently, too much of a detail, while zedonk parentage is not. An introductory college evolutionary biology text would be a useful guideline to understand the weight and importance of various aspects of today's evolutionary biology to understand its development. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• (Its gone due to several concerns over overly complex material for introduction. "Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium

To understand the mechanisms that allow a population to evolve, it is useful to consider a hypothetical non-evolving population. ... It is very rare for natural populations to experience no change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation." The section on Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is completely and entirely out of place in the article and the authors fail to tie it in to the prior section, introductory, in the Population genetics portion of the article, and fail to tie it into the following section. It serves no purpose in the article, and the concept is not an introductory concept in evolution. In particular, if the authors can't tie the topic into the section itself and can't lead from the prior section to the topic, then follow-up about the topic, it shouldn't be there. It's as if the discussion is Ford Motor Cars, starts with a paragraph on Henry Ford, moves on to discuss John Glenn, then closes with a section on the assembly line.

Done:--Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "From a genetic viewpoint, evolution is a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool."

The first sentence of this section is particularly problematic. Uh, evolution is emphatically not the "generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles" within a population. Even this introductory to evolution article doesn't claim that anywhere else in the article. The frequency of alleles in a population may change all of the time due to many factors. For example, if there is a hurricane and only one animal of the population survives, the frequency of alleles is now whatever that animal has. The only living moth is black. Is that evolution? Not according to any definition given in this article. In fact, if it is a non-breeding female, it's extinction. This is a bad sentence. A very bad sentence. Evolution and extinction are not the same thing. There should be no sentences in this article showing that it is.

Are there populations that don't share a common gene pool? We have a clue to the answer to this question in a later sentence in the same paragraph: "A gene pool is the complete set of alleles in a single population." It seems that if the complete set of alleles in a single population is its gene pools, this is, in fact, evidence that, by definition, they "share a common gene pool." The third paragraph of this section starts with this mind-boggler: "Frequencies of alleles in a gene pool typically change, resulting in evolution of populations over successive generations." So, the populations evolve and evolve over successive generations just because the frequencies of alleles typically change? I thnk that the Hardy-Weinberg section was saying something different about this. Evolution isn't a necessary, forward momentum process that just occurs with time, as random mutations cause changes from one generatin to the next in gene pools. This whole section seems to be first emphasizing the null hypothesis, and, second, showing that evolution occurs from each generation to the next. I know my grandpa is the same species as I am.

Done--- it is gone -----Random Replicator (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire section appears to be written in a disjointed fashion without comprehension by the authors of the overall structure of population genetics and its relationship to evolution. It should be removed from the article rather than rewritten. --Amaltheus (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing, because there is an entire talk page archive since this FAC started, and the article has been substantially rewritten at FAC.

722 edits and five week later: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Support: Wassupwestcoast, Ben Tillman, DrKiernan, Kaldari, dave souza, Awadewit, Giano, Professor marginalia, Dweller, GetAgrippa, David D.

Oppose

• Titanium Dragon (has this been addressed, has TD been asked to revisit?)
  • User talk:Titanium Dragon -- twice. Struck out concerns of talk page. Nothing more I can do.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• OrangeMarlin (objection to book sources is not a valid oppose, most citation inconsistencies have been cleaned up as far as I can tall, except that page nos are needed on book sources)
• Amaltheus, very strong oppose, questions on accuracy of representation of sources and accuracy of text, extensive talk page discussion, FAC commentary impossible to follow due to strange formatting and moves back and forth to talk page, this is a serious oppose that needs to be resolved and clarified.
  • I'm open to suggestions on formatting. It's not clear that there is a specific format required or desirable that would be easier to follow. There are still more issues in the article, imprecise language and improper synonyms for example, but overall it has generally moved from a somewhat technical introduction to evolution with random areas of greater technicality to a more general and approachable true introduction to evolution that is well outlined. I see a lot of potential in this article for being what its owners initially wanted it to be.
    • Wherever it goes, what is needed is a clear, brief summary of what concerns are left and whether progress is being made. (No, that doesn't belong on your talk page; here on the FAC is preferred.) Because commentary on this FAC is almost never threaded/indented correctly, I can't tell who has written what above (comments aren't threaded, and I can't tell who entered the underscored done comments). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see you suggesting that this be put on my talk page, something Random Replicator addresses below. The issues are real problems with the article that need addressed as far as I am concerned, and my talk page is no more appropriate for that than it was appropriate for the crap that has been put there. I struck out concerns that were addressed, leaving only issues that impact the accuracy of the article. The stuff on pre/postzygotic barriers should be moved to an article on that topic, as Wikipedia seems not to have one. --Amaltheus (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • He has instructed (all the current contributors) to not intrude on his talk page. I think we should respect that request. I've attempted to incorporate some of his concerns on this page which I see have now been struck. The separate pages were requested to separate concerns over article problems with issues concerning editor behaviors. There has been more than enough said by all on this --- let it rest. The FA Director can decide from here. Please --Random Replicator (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Brískelly and Kaypoh have not revisited in spite of requests.

Page numbers on book sources and WP:OVERLINKing still need to be addressed. There is still ongoing talk page discussion and active changes to the article (not clear if the article fails 1e, or just wasn't initially ready for FAC). Please finish up the MOS items listed on the talk page, and clarify where Amaltheus' issues stand, and TD and OM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say "not ready at the time of submission"; hence edits to improve - most involving reduction in complexity or a crash course in formating and citations. There is absolutely no edit war. It would be very disappointing to fail FA because of that perception --there is one very unhappy editor with very strong opinions. The changes by recent contributors are also followed with their supports --- the compromises above should dispel any concerns on edit warring. Stability -- as long as its improving I can accept failing on that one. Hopefully, the summation below and the separate discussion page dedicated entirely to his concern over ownership is adequate to express where the Amaltheus' issues stands. Also thank you for coming to the rescue on the technical concerns; fail FA or not --- it is a 1000x's better after passing under the demanding eyes of both you SandyGeorgia and Awadewit; it has been an incredibly humbling experience. --- --Random Replicator (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always believed that temporarily re-focusing upset editors on technical matters can help relieve content tension and bring editors back to working together :-) Great progress has been made here; I hope all will work together to resolve the few remaining issues, so the article can pass without ill will. Working out MOS and citation issues at peer review is another tip for a peaceful FAC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Continued concerns with the article As mentioned in my comments above, the editors have used synonyms in the article, such as "variety" for "diversity," (an example, this one is not as important). In the cases I pointed out, which have been corrected, the editors used synonyms with specific technical meanings for general words in English. As this is a general article, "variety" for "diversity" can stand, whether I like it or not. I have not checked the entire article for additional concerns like this. Genetics jargon can't be used in a general sense in an article on evolution. The jargon must be used only in its technical meaning. I don't see that other editors are checking for this.

• Although I believe it was just careless editing, I am still concerned about checking for copyright violations. Another editor pointed out that this article may wind up sounding like a dozen other general introductions to evolution. Maybe, but that wasn't the problem with the copyright violation-it was a very specific instance. The article has to be checked out.

• Amaltheus, the best way to proceed on that issue is to go back in the article history and determine who entered the copyvio. Chances are, it was an IP. In any case, see if the same editor made any other edits; if not, there's probably no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The source of that error has been discussed at length elsewhere by the editor who did it. I see no need for the contributors to follow-up this concern anymore --Random Replicator (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• The references were obviously not attached to what they were referencing. Other editors should have caught this while editing, but did not. This concerns me when no one catches that a reference about Mendel is attached to Darwin's works.

• The best we can do on this issue is a random spot check; say, every fifth reference, or something like that. It is an important concern; I recall another recent FAC where almost every citation turned out not to verify the text. A spot, random check usually reveals issues if there are any. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The templates were being applied during FA which created havok; since it was done to all of them at once by me. I was attempting to do this with limited skills. Fortunately, Amaltheus was there to catch my errors and bring them to my attention here. Even better thou, Wassupwestcoast recently invested a great amount of energy to properly template and link. I hope it is spot-on now; but spot checking is always an excellent idea.--Random Replicator (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• The number of obvious problems that the writers of this article have missed concerns me. There continues to be obvious inaccurate characterizations of evolution in the article. Huge inaccurate characterizations. I keep correcting them here, and they keep slipping in. I'm concerned that the writers don't catch these instances. The first sentence is an example:
  • "Evolution is the natural process by which all life changes over generations."
• Evolution is not only not the process by which all life changes over generations, all life doesn't change over generations. Evolution is about speciation, the accumulation of change in a population over generations. In an otherwise excellent paragraph, finding something this wrong is troubling, and the lead sentence at that.

• Evolution is the accumulation of change in a population. I see Wikipedia's article on evolution also emphasizes the generation to generation evolution.

• This implies that my generation is different from my grandfather's generation, from my mother's generation, which is different from her father's generation. This is not the case. I don't know how to say this any better. It is very difficult to communicate at a level where on the one hand the debate is whether H-W should be included or not (the problem was it wasn't tied into the discussion in its section), and on the other we keep have to defining evolution. It is troubling that the writers keep putting in difficult sentences such as this one after spending ages debating the form of the lead paragraphs. No compromise should be made that puts wrong information in the article, and in such a prominent position.

• The article is mostly about complex multicellular eukaryotic evolution, but has a mind-boggling summary box about single parent clones. The box might be the result of entrenching against me for my suggestion that sex be mentioned in the box. But the summary box should match the article. If the article talks about complex multicellular eukaryotic evolution the summary box should not be about an exception to this. This is an appropriate simplification for an article of this nature, sticking with only the large and familiar world. But it's not acceptable to focus one way here another way there.

• This has been addressed at length and the present state of the box was overwhelming supported.--Random Replicator (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• As long as difficulties like these keep arising, mind-boggling difficulties such as making the lead sentence factually incorrect, I think the article is not worthy of being featured. The definition of "evolution" is not a minor issue. Using the term incorrectly is a major stumbling block for this article. Using jargon as general English synonyms is a stumbling block. Missing incorrect references is a stumbling block. Continued hostility to other Wikipedians who can catch these issues, while the writers are missing them, is a major stumbling block.

• --Amaltheus (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the new summary, Amaltheus. I've just read through the talk page here, and I see that things got a bit out of hand. I appreciate the progress made by all, and hope all can refocus on addressing the few remaining concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment The Sources of variation section gives excess credit to Watson and Crick and the historical sequence is wrong. I have left a comment on the Talk page. This section does not have to be long because the article is about Evolution and not DNA, but it must be accurate.--GrahamColm^Talk 12:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an introductory article, the appropriate response is to be more vague and less detailed, not more.--Filll (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As it stands the article is not accurate, it does not require more detail, it needs the inaccurate details to be removed.--GrahamColm^Talk 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Support This is an excellent introduction to an important subject.--GrahamColm^Talk 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another error, this comes from using a primary source, probably:

:"In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick contributed to one of the most important breakthroughs in biological science when they described the double helix structure of DNA.[12] This helped to demonstrate how DNA serves as the hereditary code and how genetic variations in a population arise by chance mutations in DNA."

"This" is from the preceding sentence: the described double helix structure of DNA. But it isn't the "double helix structure" that helps demonstrate how DNA serves as the hereditary code, but the base pairing, which immediately suggests how DNA could be the hereditary code by its copying mechanism being a function of its structure:

:"It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." (From their article.) Again, the references have to say what they are attached to, not common folklore that the double helix is the coolest thing in the world about DNA. It's the base pairing.

This was and remains one of the most stunning breakthroughs in biology, it can't be rewritten to be something else for this article. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Does this solve that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. --Amaltheus (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• The structure of DNA is referred to as the double helix. -- I do not think the author of this sentence intended to imply that helical shape was exclusive or even the primary force behind heredity. I didn't read it that way. It is a commonly used descriptive term for DNA. If it should become a major point of contention; then I suggest dropping "double helix structure" and just say they described the structure of DNA; rather than increasing complexity in that passage. Going into the base pairing rules might be a tad off topic; perhaps best linked out. Would simply deleting the statement double helix structure achieve the same goal without the need to swing toward increased complexity? --Random Replicator (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The double helix is commonly known, the only problem was implying, by the sentence, that this is what Watson and Crick's major breakthrough in the biological sciences was. Most of what we do today in the biological sciences is due to the insight of Watson and Crick into the base pairing. The problem is raising the double helix to the level of one of the most important breakthroughs in the biological sciences when it pales in comparison to what their published insight into the base pairing does. I don't think the sentences about the base pairing G-C A-T have added anything to the article or are necessary to an article of this nature. But Waston and Crick should be clarified because that little sentence in this one tiny article is the foundation of a new era in science, and in evolutionary science, and the double helix, as important and interesting as it is, is not the same thing. --Amaltheus (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask then --- will dropping the double helix structure from the text be adequate to your concerns so that I may delete the newly added information? I'm trying to lean toward simplicity on this one. --Random Replicator (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have missed or dismissed my strike out of "my concerns" about this issue above.[10] --Amaltheus (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd leave it as it is [[11]]. Although I agree fully with Amaltheus about base-pairing being the more important concept, readers understand codes, the small addition re: the base pairing G-C A-T doesn't do any harm.--GrahamColm^Talk 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Either way on this one, as long as the proper emphasis is on the major discovery, which is why I struck the issue out after SandyGeorgia asked about it. --Amaltheus (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic section moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Overstepping conclusion:

• "There is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection. As in natural selection, the variations are a result of random mutations; the only difference is that in artificial selection, humans select which organisms will be allowed to breed.[25]"

This sentence oversteps its reference by a wide degree. There is a big difference in natural and artificial selection, in that natural selection ultimately results in viable breeding populations of a new species. I think corn is the only instance where artifical selection has done that. Great Danes and German Shephards have no barriers to cross breeding. They are not species. Many crop plants are grown from clones (fruits for example). I suggest something along the lines of equating the human selection of desirable traits to the natural selection of traits fit to the organism's current environment. The conclusion, in any way, has to be tied to a source, not to a definition. --Amaltheus (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest you propose new wording on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd just get rid of it, but I'll think about how I'd rewrite it. --Amaltheus (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If the double helix offends people, get rid of it. Simpler is better. Rather than adding more detail to make it more "accurate" and "correct", I would advise dumping all the information in that area. Otherwise, we will be heading in a very negative direction. If vague bothers people, just remove that topic completely, IMHO.--Filll (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—1b, not comprehensive. Not a single mention is made of Darwin's theory of sexual selection, which occupies a whole chapter in his original book, and forms a major part of natural selection. And not a single mention that behaviour as well as physical attributes is subject to evolutionary forces. Tony (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This article is not about Darwin, or any of his original books, but the theory of evolution. It is written as an introduction for people with little knowledge of what evolution is and probably little scientific background. Why would it have to mention everything that Darwin mentions? Or give things the same weighting that Darwin gave them, decades ago? This article isn't supposed to go into the complex details; there is the article evolution for that. Skittle (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I concur with Skittle. Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1e, to begin with. This is what it looked like when the nom began. Not even the lead has been stable. An article shouldn't need 700 edits during FAC. And it raises an obvious question: what will it look like a month from now? Judging the threads that have emerged on this, it seems to be headed toward dispute resolution, not the stability we expect of FAs. I echo Tony's 1b concern: why does artificial selection get a section and sexual selection get nothing? Finally, I question the very logic of having the page. I just did a top-to-bottom read of Evolution. It's a wonderful article. Critical definitions are explained at first mention, the language is as plain as possible, and examples are well chosen. Attentive readers should easily be able to follow it. That isn't to say that there is nothing of use here. It might be retargetted as History of evolutionary thought (post-1959) as it's largely structured chronologically. Marskell (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • • Since you've drawn attention to the Evolution article, I note that it includes one of the misconceptions that was the subject of intense scrutiny during this FAC process for this article, so I'll look at clarifying and correcting the evolution article. .. dave souza, talk 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The stability criteria has historically be interpreted to exclude edits made in furtherance of a FAC nomination. Raul654 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: I've modified the FA criteria to make this point explicit. Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not just that it has changed but that it seems likely it will continue to change. If this situation, taken in sum, doesn't breach 1e, I'm not sure what does. Marskell (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It does appear that the community might be able to find a place and a use for introductory articles, which are by necessity incomplete and vague. I am sorry that this is true, but remember your grade school texts on math and science? I am sure if you do, or look at a grade school text, you will find that it is missing many things and oversimplified in many ways. After all, does the atom really look like a bunch of wooden balls on metal springs? Some feedback on this from the community and discussion can be seen at the ongoing AfD discussion for this article. And of course the LEAD looks different now than it did at the start. I would personally expect this, since the point of an FAC is to improve the article. Perhaps there is something I am not understanding about the FAC process and you could help me to correct my misunderstanding? My impression iis that the main authors worked hard to accommodate all requests, and be cooperative, and this has resulted in many changes to the article. Some of these changes even made it less introductory, and might very well have to be corrected. Thank you for your input.--Filll (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose; unstable. Will ^(talk) 18:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • See my response to Marskell above. Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm strongly in favour of this article being featured, but I wonder if either this process should remain open for quite some time, or it should be closed and the article renominated in a couple of weeks when everything that people have suddenly brought up has been processed. I suppose the danger with that approach is that the energy with which people are bringing things up might vanish. I do think this article is excellent (and much needed), and I suppose quite a lot of FACs are thoroughly edited during the process, but I wonder whether a little more time is needed for everything to be dealt with. Skittle (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.