Talk:Transitional fossil

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Transitional fossil/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. 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.

2. 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

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

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(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.

Review

1. 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

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	i) Footnotes: appropriate. 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	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Please see Discussion below. 'Citation needed' and 'Page needed' tags have been added to article.  Done	Pass
(c) (original research)	Article is properly cited.	Pass

3. 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') would help. Done	Pass

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

Notes	Result
Article covers the subject evenly and neutrally.	Pass

5. 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

6. 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)	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	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Review is complete; missing citations now supplied.

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. bibliomaniac15 05:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

It seems rather strange timing, Petter. What have you in mind? --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. 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? 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. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

So I see. What is your view of my suggestion above? 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. --Stfg (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The new images are better. What about this for an historic Archaeopteryx image? 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. 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 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 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. 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". Allens (talk | 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. 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 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. 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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What about 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? 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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Tiktaalik picture (again)

The current picture of the "fishapod",File:Fishapods.png, isn't very good. First off, it shows Tiktaalik as one of a number of critters. The drawings themselves are just line drawings and are not very good (Acanthostega is particularly bad), and Tiktaalik bends it head in a rather peculiar way. I don't think it could do that in real life (it could tip it's head up, not down). It also illustrate temporal and habitat distribution, rather than the animals themselves. It would be a decent illustration for Fishapod or Evolution of tetrapods, but I think we should find one better suited for this article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We are free to revert to the image of the reconstruction of Tiktaalik which remains on Commons. No explanation was given for moving to the 'fishapod' drawing, we are free to ask why it was substituted. Meanwhile I've inserted the skull photo which is definitely helpful in showing use of air as well as water...... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it was because there was a round of vandalism last night, removing pictures released by a particular artist on Commons, and someone added the current instead. The old picture was however not ideal either, as it showed Tiktaalik in an improbable "push-up" position. Obsidian Soul was making a new picture, but he did not get around to finish it. We could ask him nicely if he can finish it, or I can make a crude picture (when family time allows). Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the original image is still on Commons, and if it was merely removed in vandalism there's no reason not to revert, so I've put it back for now. That doesn't preclude you or Obsidian Soul drawing a better one, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

My error, got mixed up with the apparent deletion of an allegedly non-free image and added the fishapod pic as an interim measure. None of the images are ideal. If our Tiktaalik article is correct, it "also lacked a characteristic that most fishes have—bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement. This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck, with the pectoral girdle separate from the skull." Lateral (anatomy) implies sideways movement, distinct from fishes which must move their whole body to move their head. Shubin's Your Inner Fish pp. 22–24 is clear that Tiktaalik was distinguished from fishes by having a neck and being able to move its head independently, but these pages don't indicate whether the movement was lateral. There's also the question of habitat: Obsidian Soul's sketch is terrific, hope something on these lines can be made available. . dave souza, talk 14:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh good, an honest mixup, not anything worse. We'll look forward to a better image, then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We could ever so nicely ask Obsidian how things are going. As Davis says, non of the images we have are ideal. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Split Missing Link

Current missing link redirects to Transitional fossil#Missing links. I propose to move this section's 5 paragraphs to a separate article because the content is distinct from the main article (WP:CONSPLIT). Particularly, the section about "missing links" is about the antiquated concept which transitional fossils replaced. I'm reminded of the distinction between abiogenesis and creation myth, or theory of relativity and luminiferous aether. We have different articles about these because the former is scientific and the latter is not. A separate article for "missing link" might make it easier to categorize and reference, e.g., in Category:Misconceptions or from the list of common misconceptions. --beefyt (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be most unfortunate. The redirect is appropriate because 'missing link' describes in a confused and lay (non-specialist) way part of the same idea as transitional fossil: the same, because the idea is that there is some kind of a gap to be transitioned between item of evidence A and item B; confused and lay because of course a gap is inherent in the fossil record, not least because each fossil is discrete so by definition there must be gaps, but also because of the feeling that just one more piece would complete the jigsaw puzzle, or that this one exciting discovery is the magic missing piece. You unfortunately can't dismiss this as purely antiquated because the popular press still treats the likes of Tiktaalik as a missing link; every decade we get headlines like 'throw away your zoology textbooks'. No, 'missing link' is properly a view of the transitional fossil concept, and while it has misunderstanding all around it, you could say that transitional does too; after all, many if not most fossils illustrate some kind of transition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the two terms "transitional fossil" and "missing link" describe the same phenomena. If anything, we should put the term "missing link" in the first sentence of the lede as it probably is the most used (if not correct) term. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Although they describe the same phenomena, the term missing link gives a very different explanation of the phenomena than transitional fossils, i.e., the great chain of being. This article is supposed to be about scientific ideas, but it contains a section about religious and historical ideas. In my opinion this section does not fit, since it leads in a different direction (religion, pseudoscience, etc.) than the main article. To be expanded, categorized, and placed in context (e.g., creationism), the section must be split into a separate article. Flood geology is not a section in the geological history article because the two topics give very different explanations of the same phenomena. Generally, a separate article is be more effective and less confusing to a general reader because the scientific concept would be explained in the context of the lay concept, rather than explaining the lay concept in the context of the scientific concept. --beefyt (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find that the use of the therm "missing link" is a bit more complex than just being religious and pseudoscientific. I am not dead set against a separate article, but just like an article on evolution should discuss Lamarcism in the history-section, this one should have something on missing links, even the pseudoscientific aspect of it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I expected so; I'm not very familiar with the concept other its occurrence in mainstream media. I agree that this article should discuss "missing link". Ideally I'd to keep 1-2 paragraphs here and add a hatnote to the main article. --beefyt (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Over 50 articles currently link directly to missing link. Maybe this is a good signal that the topic deserves its own article? --beefyt (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite true: they link indirectly to the current article. I've undone your change to the redirect. Looking at a few random examples, the redirect is better to the head of the article as it has been. Missing link is still the popular term for "transitional fossil" and by Wikipedia rules that's where it should link. Few people know or care about the great chain of being. I think your proposal below is not supported by most people above. Chris55 (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I'll remove the split tag. --beefyt (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

I propose a new version of "Transitional fossil" and new "Missing link" article,

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beefyt/Transitional_fossil
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beefyt/Missing_link

Is this satisfactory? --beefyt (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I personally would like them to remain one article, but there's certainly enough text to make a Missing Link article. It needs a bit of work though, as it must also present the concept of evolutionary intermediates. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You've done it as well as it can probably be done, but it still has the effect of weakening a Good Article, and of splitting one subject into two articles; and there is the likelihood of increased content forking as people add material to both articles to replace the 'missing' bits not present in each half. No, it's far more satisfactory to leave it as it is, I'm afraid. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Article feedback

How does one add the Feedback tool to an article? That would be very useful and would show us areas that this article can improve. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Added the feedback option. Haven't gotten any yet. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Reader feedback on Missing links:

"Whoever wrote this seems to be confused regarding what constitutes the term "missing link". I was referring to a post-Darwinian use of the term whereby modern humans are directly connected to a specific line of hominid. Though his (her) explanation of Java man is acceptable, and is definitely not missing, the inference that future discoveries will somehow fill in does infer that for now they are indeed missing."

What are your thoughts? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The commenter seem to have missed the references for the term having several meanings. The article has an example of the term used by a modern researcher (Benton) using it for a non-humanoid fossil, the Archaeopteryx. Perhaps we need to make this more clear? Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Vestigial organs

Should this fit into the article in any way?

Vestigial organs are common in whales (legs),[25] flightless birds (wings), snakes (pelvis and lung), and numerous structures in humans (the coccyx, plica semilunaris, and appendix).

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)