Talk:Transitional fossil/GA1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:27, 9 May 2012

Latest revision as of 14:24, 24 March 2022

(4 intermediate revisions by 3 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 class="NavFrame collapsed">

<div classstyle="NavHeadline-height: 1.6em; font-weight: bold; text-align: center; background-color: #ccf;">[[WP:GA|Good Article Status]] - Review Criteria </div>

<div class="NavContentmw-collapsible-content" style="font-size:100%;text-align:left">

<div style="text-align:center">'''<small>{{see|WP:WIAGA}}</small>'''</div>

A [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] is&mdash;

Line 57:

|| {{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|holdok}}

|-

| '''(c)''' (original research) || Article is properly cited. || {{GAHybrid/item|ok}}

Line 108:

! Result !! Notes

|-

| {{GAHybrid/item|holdok}} || Review is complete; but for somemissing citations needed, to be cleared bynow editingsupplied.

|}

Line 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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:black;">bibliomaniac</fontspan>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<fontspan colorstyle="color:red;">1</fontspan>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<fontspan colorstyle="color:blue;">5</fontspan>]]''''' 05:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

:I agree, and have done another pass this morning. --[[User:Stfg|Stfg]] ([[User talk:Stfg|talk]]) 10:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Line 142:

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>]] _{[[User:Wizardman/Operation Big Bear|<span style="color:#600">Operation Big Bear</span>]]} 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]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Allens|contribs]]) 23:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Line 149 ⟶ 151:

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===