Content deleted Content added
→Review: images |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (32 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 7:
===Criteria===
<!-- Template:GAHybrid -->
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="text-align: center; padding: 4px; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; font-size: 95%;">
<div
<div class="
<div style="text-align:center">'''<small>{{see|WP:WIAGA}}</small>'''</div>
A [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] is—
Line 50:
! Criteria !! Notes !! Result
|-
| '''(a)''' (references) ||
ii) References: Seems a short list; what are we missing? At least, some books e.g. Haeckel, Lovejoy should move from footnotes. Perhaps Gould also. {{done}}
iii) External links: Perhaps too many whale sites; needs rebalancing. {{done}}
|| {{GAHybrid/item|ok}}
|-
| '''(b)''' (citations to reliable sources) || Please see Discussion below. 'Citation needed' and 'Page needed' tags have been added to article. {{done}} || {{GAHybrid/item|
|-
| '''(c)''' (original research) ||
|}
<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:</li>
Line 64 ⟶ 69:
| '''(a)''' (major aspects) || The key points are covered. The range of examples is suitably wide. Traditional and modern views are explained. || {{GAHybrid/item|ok}}
|-
| '''(b)''' (focused) || Not sure the ''Runcaria'' section really gets across its point. A diagram (cp [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5697/856/F3.large.jpg Runcaria 'seed'])
|}
<li>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|4}}.</li>
Line 90 ⟶ 95:
| '''(a)''' (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) || All images are from Commons, with (c) tags. || {{GAHybrid/item|ok}}
|-
| '''(b)''' (appropriate use with suitable captions) || a) Representing ''A. afarensis'' as a skull when text is all about bipedalism and angle of femur is unhelpful if not inadequate; a photograph or diagram that shows the hip and femur, perhaps with a (walking) reconstruction. {{done}}
b) An image of ''Runcaria'' appears necessary - it will be less familiar to readers than ''Australopithecus'' or ''Archaeopteryx'', and the points made are quite technical (''anemophilous''); suggest a diagram, ideally comparing ''Runcaria'' with a modern seed. Depending on the image(s), the section text may need enhancement also. {{done}}
c) It might be helpful to include a historic reconstruction image of ''Archaeopteryx'' in the 'History of transitional fossils' section - Commons has some - to show the impact of the 1861 find. In particular an image to show 'reptile with feathers' (ideally an early/Victorian reconstruction) would make the point clearly. {{done}}
|| {{GAHybrid/item|
|}
</ol>
Line 103 ⟶ 108:
! Result !! Notes
|-
| {{GAHybrid/item|ok}} ||
|}
====Discussion====
''Please add any related discussion here.''
Line 110 ⟶ 116:
Goodness gracious, they really did change up the GA page format! I should do this a bit more often.
I would say in general, you want to have at least one source per paragraph at the GA level. It's good practice: You really can't have too few citations. In particular, I would like to see more citations for the "Transitions in phylognetic nomenclature" and the Australopithecus sections; they seem to be the sparsest sections. If a citation covers more than one sentence, just put it at the end of the paragraph, and that should be fine. I've given several sections a quick copyedit for some grammatical and spelling mistakes, although I feel that the article as a whole could use a bit more fine polishing on the prose. It seems to hit all the spots content-wise though, and the images check out. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<
:I agree, and have done another pass this morning. --[[User:Stfg|Stfg]] ([[User talk:Stfg|talk]]) 10:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Line 124 ⟶ 130:
:It seems rather strange timing, Petter. What have you in mind? --[[User:Stfg|Stfg]] ([[User talk:Stfg|talk]]) 19:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
::First off, we need a definition-section, which should be followed by the "science" bits (Limitations of the fossil record, Transitions in phylogenetic nomenclature, Transitional versus ancestral). After that should come the history-section, and the article should round off with the examples. Where the examples overlap with the text in the earlier, the examples should be dealt with in the earlier sections. Per now, we have two sections on ''Archaeopteryx'', which is neither here nor there. I have tried to get some interest in rearranging the the contents before, but with no response, so I decided to be bold and just do it. Seems it was unpopular though. [[User:Petter Bøckman|Petter Bøckman]] ([[User talk:Petter Bøckman|talk]]) 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
:: (GA Reviewer) - I think there are merits on both sides of this discussion. For me, the main issue is actually not the text but the presentation of the examples, which was quite technical and not well served by the images: a T.S. micrograph for a discussion of the branching growth habit of ''Rhynia''; a skull for a discussion of the inward-angled femur and bipedal locomotion of ''A. afarensis'' among others. Since the instructions to GA reviewers permit it, I have boldly gone ahead and attempted to fix this - please feel free to edit these as I do not wish to impose by reason of my temporary role.
:: Petter's feeling on the undesirability of 2 sections on Archaeopteryx is noted, but perhaps the use of a historic reconstruction (as per the GA Review notes above) solves the problem - the article rightly looks at the fossil both with modern eyes and for its historic and popular impact.
:: Are people happy with that? [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 07:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
:::The main action (with a bit of temperature to it) seems to be happening here: [[Talk:Transitional_fossil#Major_alterations_during_GA_review]]. Your input would be very welcome. [[User:Petter Bøckman|Petter Bøckman]] ([[User talk:Petter Bøckman|talk]]) 08:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
:::: So I see. What is your view of my suggestion above? [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 09:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::Thank you, Chiswick Chap. If you have found a way that will satisfy the scientists and allow you to pass the GA, I will certainly be happy with it. --[[User:Stfg|Stfg]] ([[User talk:Stfg|talk]]) 09:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::The new images are better. What about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archeopteryx_color.jpg this] for an historic ''Archaeopteryx'' image? [[User:Petter Bøckman|Petter Bøckman]] ([[User talk:Petter Bøckman|talk]]) 09:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Oh good. If you prefer the Heinrich Harder image, go right ahead and use it - the text may need altering a little. I'll proceed with the rest of my review. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 10:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
What's the status of this review? Little seems to have happened the past couple weeks, ideally both sides should be wrapping up. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>[[User:Wizardman/Operation Big Bear|<span style="color:#600">Operation Big Bear</span>]]</sub> 04:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
:: It's on hold. I am monitoring; a pass requires only that the remaining citations needed are supplied, and for me to verify that work. If you can help (e.g. by finding volunteers), that would resolve the situation. many thanks [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 08:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
===The last few references===
:::The last references are going to be tricky to find. These are references at to how phylogenetic literature treat transitional fossils. Since phyl. lit. do not recognize transitions between groups, it is a bit like finding an Atheist text discussing God. I'm not saying such sources don't exist, but you'll need someone well versed in the arcana of phylogenetic literature (i.e not me) to dig them out. [[User:Petter Bøckman|Petter Bøckman]] ([[User talk:Petter Bøckman|talk]]) 16:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I've located one useful reference (it's a book talking about evolution being supported by the fossil record), although it doesn't have quite everything. Actually, I am beginning to think that discussing it in terms of [[crown group]] versus stem group species may be better than "basal taxa" and "sister taxa". [[User:Allens|Allens]] ([[User_talk:Allens|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Allens|contribs]]) 23:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::There's actually two problems with using crown-stem to explain this: One is that transitional fossils do not necessarily have any crown-group (an hypothetical ur-trilobite for instance, or a transitional critter between primitive and advanced pterosaurs) and thus no stem group either, the other is that what this sentence is conveying is really that the cladistic method can not identify a transitional fossil, much less an actual ancestral one. A true ancestor, let's say a true ancestral bird, would just end up like a sister group to the birds, just like ''Archaeopteryx''. Crown and stem should be mentioned though. [[User:Petter Bøckman|Petter Bøckman]] ([[User talk:Petter Bøckman|talk]]) 18:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
'''Found it!'''
I found a source saying fairly much what I just wrote above. It's [http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/tetrapoda/amphibians.html Amphibians, Systematics, and Cladistics] from [[Palaeos]] website. I suppose it's borderline, but Palaeos ''is'' considered a reputable source in a number of other Wikipedia artickles. Read through it (it's short and readable, another one of Palaeos good points) and see if you think it is a relevant for this article. I'll include it if there's no objections. [[User:Petter Bøckman|Petter Bøckman]] ([[User talk:Petter Bøckman|talk]]) 20:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
:: It's clearly relevant and reputable; Palaeos is a well-informed and long-established secondary source reporting the key ideas in this field, which is ideal for this purpose here. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 07:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
:::What about [http://urhomology.blogspot.com/2009/06/paraphyly-watch-3-transitional-fossils.html this one]? It is a blog, but the writes are serious scientists, and both seems hard core phylogenetic nomenclaturists (and downright hostile to the concept of "tranbsition"). Is it useable? [[User:Petter Bøckman|Petter Bøckman]] ([[User talk:Petter Bøckman|talk]]) 07:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
:::: Perhaps it is, but Palaeos seems more solid and defensible as a source for this purpose. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 08:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
===Additional Notes===
| |||