Talk:Orthogenesis/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Kostas20142 (talk · contribs) 15:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC) I will take up this GA nomination
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

images

 * File:Henry Fairfield Osborn.jpg provides no source or creator, so it might be an issue. Fixing tho or changing the image would be a good idea.
 * Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The rest of the images are ok

comments

 * The word "controversial" in lead isn't really neutral. Would you mind omitting it??
 * Done.


 * "More extreme versions of orthogenesis....": This phrase could be perceived as an implication that orthogenesis is extreme, in Wikipedia's voice, which isn't neutral. Could someone rephrase it??
 * Done.


 * "...the idea of "Progress" (with a capital letter, meaning a progressionist philosophy) in evolutionary biology ...": Although not 100%,necessary, I feel that it would be better to change it as following: "....the idea of Progress, a progressionist philosophy, in evolutionary biology ..."
 * Done, we don't have to go into Ruse's distinction between Progress and progress here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Biology has largely rejected the idea that evolution is guided in any way, but it appears that the..." appears like WP:WEASEL. And the whole section might need to be rewritten (or even removed and added as link at "See also" since it's significant relevance to the subject is not explained)
 * There are two issues here: relevance, and weaselliness.
 * Relevance: The section is certainly relevant because the idea of guidance in evolution was the core of orthogenesis. Therefore, anything that seems to involve guidance is directly of interest, even if, as with modern facilitated variation, the mechanism is purely natural selection.
 * You are right on that --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weasel: Since the section is relevant, I don't believe there is any slippery weasel-wording here, though I've removed "it appears that" in case that was worrying you. I'm happy to cite any part of the wording in more detail, though the existing (Baxter et al) source covers it pretty well.
 * Just to clarify, I most certainly don't mean it was intended. I meant that the "Biology has largely rejected..." part gave me that impression. Adding an additional source for that would be great, however I can proceed to promotion without it in terms of GA status. --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, many thanks for the review, much appreciated. I've added sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

other modifications

 * "made the use of the term orthogenesis taboo" → "made the use of the term orthogenesis taboo ".
 * Italicised.

..