Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alfred Russel Wallace


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

Alfred Russel Wallace
previous FAC

This article was nominated about a month ago by another editor. The nomination was premature, but as a result of the process a lot of valuable input was gathered that significantly improved the article. Since then I and a couple of other editors have made many more improvements, and a noted Wallece expert was kind enough to make some edits and leave some comments on the talk page. I was able to solicit reviews and comments from some other editors, and I believe the article is now ready for FAC.Rusty Cashman 02:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Tomer T 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please combine identical footnotes. For example, I see three footnotes in a row that read "Slotten pp. 422-436". Why do I see "pp. 4" instead of "p. 4"? Lose the confusing second external jump in web references.  Pagra shtak  14:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a sample edit to show the work needed per Pagrashtak. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)  PS:  there are numerous WP:MOS issues.  Have a look, for starters, at WP:MOSNUM and WP:DASH.  Why are some solo years wikilinked? See WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSNUM.  Has this article had a peer review?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * References are alphabetical by last name of author, but Further reading uses a completely different style. Further reading should follow the same format as References.  Sandy Georgia [User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been taken care of now. Rusty Cashman 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Per numerous referencing styles, (see WP:CITE and WP:CITET) pp. is completely acceptable, if not preferred, over a single p. -- Phoenix  (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm not being dense, but I don't see a single example on either of those pages where pp. is used when referencing a single page.  Pagra shtak  13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think all the issues raised by the preceding comments have now been adequately addressed. I kept the 2nd links in the web cites but I made sure there was non link text in between to make it less confusing. Incidentally, I think this is a weakness in the web cite template and I have left a comment to that affect on the template talk page. While the article was not peer reviewed, in preparation for this nomination I did ask several editors to review the article as well as solicit input from an outside expert. Some of the feedback that resulted can be seen in the talk page. I am not quite certain I understood everything SandyGeorgia was commenting on so I am not completely sure all those comments have been addressed. I am not sure this is relevent or not but there is one quote with a wiki-link in it. I think that in this particular case that is appropriate per the exceptions mentioned in the policy Rusty Cashman 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If one of the comments to which you replied was mine, I'd just like to point out that I'm in favour of said stylistic issue, that being the citation template. Sandy will probably see your message and may better explain his comments. I'd like to also have a closer look, and will do so in the next 24 hours. -- Phoenix  (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rusty, having multiple external jumps in a web reference is confusing to the reader. I don't want to have to decide which one I think will lead me to the reference. Publisher and other similar information should link to the Wikipedia article or be left as plain text. For example, link to Western Kentucky University, not WKU's home page.  Pagra shtak  13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am going to concede on this point. I have already fixed the p. vs pp. issue for cites of a single page, and I will fix the extra external link problem within the next 24 hours. Hopefully, that will resolve all the issues over ctitation format.Rusty Cashman 05:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok all the external links to publishers in the web cites are gone and I managed to combine a couple of them. I am really hopeful that the format issues with the citations are behind us. Rusty Cashman 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. It should be made clear that Wallace developed his theory of natural selection during his Malay Archipelago exploration.  I don't like the organization of the article, though I think it can be made to work.  However, as I read through, I often come across places where I think: "wait, shouldn't there be something here about X" only to find X mentioned in another section.  I'll try to pinpoint some of the other places where this is an issue.--ragesoss 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a couple of edits I just made should address the issue of clearly drawing the connection between Wallace's Malay archipelago expedition and his ideas on evolution. I don't think there is a big structural problem with the article. It just took a little text to make the connection.Rusty Cashman 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Comment from nominator A few days ago I received a marked up hardcopy of an old version of the article from a leading Wallace scholar with numerous hand written comments. I have just finished a series of edits inspired by those comments, as well as some comments that appeared on the talk page. At the same time 2 other editors (rageoss and dave souza) have been making some significant improvements to specific parts of the article. My belief/hope is that the article should now be reasonably stable once again.Rusty Cashman 08:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per a couple of thorough nitpicking reviews. 1 2 :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I still feel a little uncomfortable with the organization, but it covers all the important issues, is well-referenced, and each section reads well.--ragesoss 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Object While this article is clearly well-researched, I feel that its prose and organization is just not quite good enough for FA. Also, perhaps oddly, I feel that it is not quite comprehensive enough for FA.
 * Should not what Wallace is "best known" for be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead rather than the second?
 * The "Early life" section jumps around quite a bit - can you work on making the sentences flow into each other better?
 * This is still a problem. The paragraphs just list facts about Wallace rather than narrate his "early life." They give the feeling of "and then this happened and then this and then this and this..." Awadewit Talk 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Still a problem.


 * I would argue that the article should be structured differently as well. Why not tell the story of his life alongside the story of his developing scientific ideas? Once I read the "Exploration" section, I thought, "that's it on natural selection"? It's rather odd. I would relay parallel the information which is in "early evolutionary thinking" with what is in "exploration" in regards to his early explorations, for example.
 * Related: I feel like the headings don't take the reader along through Wallace's life. Even more importantly (and this is probably a result of the organization of the page), there is not much information on Wallace's life here. Obviously Wallace was important because of his science, but the biography part of this page seems to have been completely lost after the first section or so. Readers are interested in Wallace's life as well as his ideas. This impression may just be a result of the poor organization, though. When I finished reading the page, I felt that I had learned a lot about Wallace's ideas but not about Wallace.
 * Related: I feel that the page lacks chronology. It is hard the follow the story of Wallace's life. So, sections like "Other controversies" or "cybernetics" are just stuck in and it is difficult for the reader who is not already familiar with Wallace to figure out what is going on in Wallace's life - what is happening simultaneously?


 * I think I understand your points. There is a lack of biographical context after he returns from Indonesia, and I agree this needs to be addressed. I also suspect that the lack of chronological order you mention is at the root of some of rageoss's reservations over organization. After I read your comments I spent some time reviewing other articles (especially other FA articles) on leading scientists, mathematicians and philosophers. I think I see 2 ways of handling this problem. One is the way the Charles Darwin article handles things which is, to a large extent, to interleave the biographical detail with the detailed discussion of his works and ideas all organized chronologically (which is what I believe you are recommending). The 2nd approach is the one used by Galileo Galilei where there is a single biographical section that outlines, in chronological order the significant events of the subject's entire life with only relatively brief allusions to their work at appropriate points. The biographical section is then followed by other sections that treat the subject's work in detail in a more thematic manner. I suspect this second approach would probably fit Wallace better and would do less violence to the current organization of the article. Although there would still have to be significant shifting of material. Would such an approach meet your concerns? Rusty Cashman 09:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not just biographies on scientists that wrestle with this problem. I myself primarily write biogrpahies on authors and the same issue arises there. I have done both styles - interweaving life with works/ideas (Sarah Trimmer) and separating life from works/ideas (Mary Wollstonecraft). I think that the root of the problem is that the page doesn't choose one of these strategies. I would be fine with either one, so go ahead and separate the life from the work and see what happens. As you say, the subject determines the structure. Right now, it is just hard to get a handle on all of the information because of the lack of structure. Awadewit Talk 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are too many subsections that are too small, I think, such as "Wallace effect" and "Defence of Origin of Species."
 * The "Defence" and "Differences" sections still seem small - why not integrate them into a section on the "Origin" and evolution? Awadewit Talk 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have combined the cybernetics section with the difference subsection and made the result a subsection of Natural selection and Darwin. I have eliminated the defence subsectionm altogehter and just moved the text into Natural selection and DarwinRusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it works to have the cybernetics section in there like that - why not put that in the "Legacy" section? To me, it just totally interrupts the flow of the page.
 * I think I understand the problem here. The text did not make it clear that Bateson had noted another significant difference between Wallace and Darwin's thinking, namely that Wallace appeared to envision natural selection as a kind of negative feedback mechanism that kept populations in sync with their environment. I believe it is more clear now. Rusty Cashman 08:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The contextualization works much better. Awadewit Talk 08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The "social and political views" section was sparse and largely uninformative, unless one knows those figures and one's history. I think that such information can be worked into the biography if it is important.
 * In general, I would say that the first part of the article needs a copyedit for the following reasons: use of imprecise diction such as "get" and "a lot"; typos; repetitive diction; and some overly long sentences.
 * I would still like more copyediting - there are some typos and many of the sentences snake around quite a bit. Maybe you could list it at the League of Copyeditors. Awadewit Talk 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reworked the Early life section and I think it no longer reads like each sentence was written by a different editor. Rusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Minor quibble: Aesthetically, it is awkward to have the majority of the pictures on the right-hand side of the page. Awadewit Talk 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that your objections have been addressed by a recent series of edits to the article, which have included a significant reorganization of the material along the lines discussed here. Rusty Cashman 03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Cybernetics" section is out of place - why is it in the middle of the discussion regarding evolution? It is kind of a footnote to history. It should not interrupt the main discussion of evolution and Darwin.
 * I have combined the cybernetics section with the difference subsection and made the result a subsection of Natural selection and Darwin.Rusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are also quite a few block quotes - I think some of these should be taken out. Which ones are the most essential?
 * I am sorry but I think the block quotes convey ideas effectively and add impact. I don't see how eliminating any of them would improve the article.Rusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't object on this basis alone.

For me, the last remaining thing is the "Early life" section - it still has absolutely no flow. It just moves from one thing to the next without any connection at all. Awadewit Talk 08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just finished some edits that I hope address this issue. Rusty Cashman 20:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support This is a well-researched, well-written and (seemingly - I am no Wallace expert) comprehensive article on Wallace. I appreciate the revision that the editors have done to make it easier to navigate and follow. Awadewit Talk 04:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.