Talk:Transitional fossil/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Writing is clear and direct. No sign of copyright issues.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Lead ok. Layout ok. No peacock or weasel language. No embedded lists.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Please see Discussion below. 'Citation needed' tags have been added to article.	On hold
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The key points are covered. The range of examples is suitably wide. Traditional and modern views are explained.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Not sure the Runcaria section really gets across its point. A diagram (cp Runcaria 'seed') comparing it with a modern seed would help.	Neutral

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Article covers the subject evenly and neutrally.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Quite intense talk, editing in 2012 with GOCE. Some reversion but no editwarring. Some (perhaps creationist) IP minor edits reverted. Edits in last month all minor except addition of example (A. afarensis).	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are from Commons, with (c) tags.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images captioned. Replaced A. afarensis skull with bipedal skeleton to illustrate text. An image of Runcaria would be useful. 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.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

A few "'Citation needed" tags have been added. What needs to be sourced is self evident in most cases, but there's a couple of points which are not entirely clear:

After On the Origin of Species, the idea of "lower animals" representing earlier stages in evolution lingered, as demonstrated in Ernst Haeckel's figure of the human pedigree. This sentence has two pieces of information: The lingering view of "lower animals", and that it can be seen in Haeckels work. There is a figure from Haeckel that illustrate this point, but it's not a source per se. Ideas?

Haeckel published on the subject himself. The idea of the "Great chain of being" is much older, before people thought of evolution (you'll find some sources there... including Lovejoy's book of that name, I read it at uni.) and more on the web under that heading.Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time it was hailed by many as the "missing link", helping set the term as primarily used for human fossils, though it is sometimes used for other intermediates, like Archaeopteryx. Again, there's two pieces of information: 1) "Missing links" is primarily used for the animal.human transition, and 2) it is also sometimes used for other transitionals. Which one of them is it that needs a source? Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could the ideal answer be "both"? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could indeed :-) Now, that was that bit of sourcing squared away. It's going to be tough finding some decent sources for the cladistics section though. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contents There's a lot of good content in the article, but it is (to my mind) not presented in an order that make the article flow naturally. This has been bugging me for some time, I'll take a stab at rearranging it. If mu copyedits is not to peoples liking, feel free to revert my edits, but if so, please give a reason for doing so! Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]