Revision as of 06:06, 31 March 2012 edit Chiswick Chap (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 310,617 edits →Review: images ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:25, 31 March 2012 edit undo Chiswick Chap (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 310,617 edits →Discussion: Contents vs Examples Next edit →
Line 124: :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) ===Additional Notes===

Talk:Transitional fossil/GA1: Difference between revisions