Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Fix Linter errors. |
|||
| (31 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<!--FAtop--><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #E6F2FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion of a [[Wikipedia:featured article candidates|featured article nomination]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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]]===
Line 17 ⟶ 23:
:::: 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. --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk:Random Replicator|talk]]) 18:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
*<S>'''Object'''</s> - Too many dot point sections, <s>the examples section is entirely unreferenced.</s> '''[[User:Blnguyen|<
:'''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. --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk:Random Replicator|talk]]) 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)<
Line 45 ⟶ 51:
(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.--[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk: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!--[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk:Random Replicator|talk]]) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Kaypoh was requested to revisit oppose and has not.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaypoh&diff=182625870&oldid=182498111] [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
*'''Support.''' <s>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! [[User:Wassupwestcoast|Wassupwestcoast]] ([[User talk:Wassupwestcoast|talk]]) 14:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)</s> 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! [[User:Wassupwestcoast|Wassupwestcoast]] ([[User talk:Wassupwestcoast|talk]]) 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 72 ⟶ 78:
::::It used to be there, but I guess it was removed in all the revisions.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 16:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': there are unreferenced paragraphs. --'''[[User: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.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk:Random Replicator|talk]]) 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Line 78 ⟶ 84:
(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. --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk: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)--[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk:Random Replicator|talk]]) 02:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Has not revisited, requested twice.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Br%C3%ADskelly&diff=185066511&oldid=182627141][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Br%C3%ADskelly&diff=182627141&oldid=180616851] [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
*<s>'''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. [[User:DrKiernan|DrKiernan]] ([[User talk:DrKiernan|talk]]) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)</s>
Line 126 ⟶ 132:
*'''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? [[User:Snalwibma|Snalwibma]] ([[User talk:Snalwibma|talk]]) 23:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
*'''<s>Temporary</s> 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. [[User:Orangemarlin|<
::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. [[User:Snalwibma|Snalwibma]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk: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: [http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html#top][http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html][http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html] 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. --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a 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. [[User:Orangemarlin|<
: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. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] | [[User talk:Awadewit|<small>talk</small>]] 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! [[User:Wassupwestcoast|Wassupwestcoast]] ([[User talk:Wassupwestcoast|talk]]) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for [[WP:NPA|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. [[User:Orangemarlin|<
:::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. --[[User:Una Smith|Una Smith]] ([[User talk:Una Smith|talk]]) 06:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 173 ⟶ 179:
** 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.
:<u>Done</u> --- very much improved--[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk: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 [[Haplochromis|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. ([[:
: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.--[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 356 ⟶ 362:
*'''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.[[User:GetAgrippa|GetAgrippa]] ([[User talk:GetAgrippa|talk]]) 19:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Fixes needed'''; I left a list on the talk page. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
*'''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. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 499 ⟶ 505:
;Summarizing, because there is an entire talk page archive since this FAC started, and the article has been substantially rewritten at FAC.
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_evolution&diff=187281212&oldid=179045482 722 edits and five week later:] [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
Support: Wassupwestcoast, Ben Tillman, DrKiernan, Kaldari, dave souza, Awadewit, Giano, Professor marginalia, Dweller, GetAgrippa, David D.
Line 508 ⟶ 514:
* 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). [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
** 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. --[[User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] ([[User talk:Amaltheus|talk]]) 00:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
***He has instructed (all the current contributors) <u>to not</u> 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 --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk: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 <s>[[WP:OVERLINK]]ing</s> 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. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
: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 [[user:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] and [[user: Awadewit|Awadewit]]; it has been an incredibly humbling experience. --- --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk: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 :-) [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
*'''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. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
::* 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 --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
::* 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.--[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk:Random nuReplicator|talk]]) 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 539 ⟶ 545:
*--[[User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
'''Comment''' <
:Since this is an introductory article, the appropriate response is to be more vague and less detailed, not more.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 14:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::<
'''Support''' This is an excellent introduction to an important subject.--[[User:GrahamColm|Graham<
<s>'''Another error''', this comes from using a primary source, probably:</s>
Line 557 ⟶ 563:
<s>This was and remains one of the most stunning breakthroughs in biology, it can't be rewritten to be something else for this article.</s> --[[User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] ([[User talk:Amaltheus|talk]]) 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:* Does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=187279621 this] solve that? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
::*Yes. --[[User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] ([[User talk: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.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FIntroduction_to_evolution&diff=187318683&oldid=187282061] --[[User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] ([[User talk:Amaltheus|talk]]) 22:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I'd leave it as it is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_evolution&action=edit§ion=2]]. Although I agree fully with [[User:Amaltheus|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.--[[User:GrahamColm|Graham<span style="color:red;">Colm</span>]][[User talk:GrahamColm|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 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. --[[User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] ([[User talk:Amaltheus|talk]]) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Off-topic section moved to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Introduction_to_evolution#Moved_from_FAC_page talk page.] [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] ([[User talk:Amaltheus|talk]]) 23:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
:*I suggest you propose new wording on the article talk page. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Amaltheus|Amaltheus]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 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. [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]]) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
***I concur with Skittle. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. 1e, to begin with. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_evolution&oldid=179052163 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. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] ([[User talk: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. .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk: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. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
***Note: I've modified the FA criteria to make this point explicit. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll|talk]]) 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''; unstable. '''[[User:Sceptre|Will]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 18:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
**See my response to Marskell above. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]]) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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.''</div><!--FAbottom--><!--Tagged by FA bot-->
| |||