Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:26, 2 April 2011.

Introduction to evolution

 * Nominator(s): M rickabaugh (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the criteria for an FA article. Introduction to Evolution was at one time a featured article, but was demoted. As part of WikiProject AP Biology 2010, I have gone in and added some content to make the article cover basic genetic drift as well as the theory of natural selection as a mechanism for changes in frequency of alleles. The article is similar to its previous FA form, with modifications from myself and other Wikipedia editors. I understand that introduction articles are not particularly favored by the Wikipedia community, but the Evolution article is difficult to understand without more background in that area of biology, which is why the introduction to evolution article is necessarily. I have talked with my biology teacher, who was the author of the original article and he approves of my nomination. Thank you for considering my nomination. M rickabaugh (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Before I even begin reviewing the article, allow me to express my sincerest gratitude for your efforts to improve such a monumentally important and challenging topic. Writing an accessible article on evolution is like trying to teach squirrels how to solve a four-dimensional Rubik's cube. Anywho, here are some areas in need improvement:
 * WP:LEAD suggests a maximum of 4 paragraphs. I would even be okay with 5 paragraphs for a particularly massive article, but 6 large paragraphs for a 35 kB article is definitely too many.
 * Fixed - Please review. Dramatic reduction of detailed explanation of genetic drift which is addressed in the appropriate sections.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In most cases, only the first word of a section title should be capitalized. For example, Founder Effect should be Founder effect.
 * Some of the section titles are too long. I suggest shortening Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection to Natural selection or some such. Similarly, I suggest shortening Different views on the mechanism of evolution to Mechanism.
 * I suggest removing the Summary section. While I realize that this is an introductory article, it is still a Wikipedia article, not an essay.
 * The article employs spaced en dashes (" – ") to break sentences. It should instead employ unspaced em dashes ("&mdash;").
 * Actually, spaced endashes are allowed per WP:MDASH. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I had missed that note. I thought em dashes were required, but I see now that they are merely preferred (by me, anyway). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Quammen, David" is a silly name. No action needed here, I just had to point this out.
 * Noted - I will request that "Quammen" seek the appropriate documents for a name change!
 * Why is Co-evolution included under Evidence for evolution? For that matter, why is it included in this article at all? This is supposed to be an introductory article, which should necessarily be less broad in scope than the main article.
 * From a teacher's standpoint - I have found the concept of co-evolution to serve as a concrete example of the adaptive properties of evolution that is easily grasped. Rather than evidence it should probably relocated to examples of evolution or perhaps worked int the text under natural selection as a example or some such thing. I would beg indulgence and request that the topic stay.--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Image:NaturalhistoryMag.jpg, which was used being used in the Different views section, has been deleted. It should be replaced; if it cannot be replaced, I suggest removing Stephen Jay Gould from the list of awesome dudebros.

Oppose - like Cryptic, I appreciate your willingness to improve this article. Unfortunately, I don't feel it meets the FA criteria at this time
 * Two dead links, one redirect to disambiguation page
 * Both the lead and the ToC are too long given the length of the article
 * Fixed - as noted above under same concern raised by Cryptic C62--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite a bit of unsourced material - examples: "Genetic drift affects smaller populations more than it affects larger populations."; deck of cards analogy; "Dobzhansky's 1937 work Genetics and the Origin of Species was an important step in bridging the gap between genetics and field biology. Mayr, on the basis of an understanding of genes and direct observations of evolutionary processes from field research, introduced the biological species concept, which defined a species as a group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from all other populations. The paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson helped to incorporate fossil research, which showed a pattern consistent with the branching and non-directional pathway of evolution of organisms predicted by the modern synthesis."
 * The deck of cards analogy is something I thought of myself, I did not obtain it from anywhere. I'm also working on citing the other things you pointed out here. M rickabaugh (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting
 * Im working on cleaning these up. M rickabaugh (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest submitting this article to peer review prior to attempting FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Manual of style edits needed - wikilinking problems (both overlinking and underlinking), stacking and sandwiching of images, etc

Comments This is a wonderful article and I absolutely agree with your comment that it is a necessary one. It is far more approachable than evolution. I don't think it is quite ready for FA but I have some constructive suggestions: In general I hope you continue to improve the article, and I plan to help. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think "Convergent evolution" belongs under evidence for evolution. It is worth mentioning but it should be moved to a separate section like you did with co-evolution.
 * Fixed. I agree with you, because the subject does no offer any strong evidence for evolution.--Rebekah best (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should add a brief subsection on biogeography (the geographic distribution of species) and in particular island biogeography and adaptive radiations to the evidence section. You could use Darwin's finches from the Galapagos or the Silversword alliance from Hawaii as an example. This sort of biogeographical evidence was historically very important to both Darwin and Wallace, and if it is summarized corectly, it is still quite compelling. If you don't beat me to it, I will put something together. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a shot at this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The subsection on the Hardy-Weinberg principle is worded in a confusing way (especially the first sentence). I had to read it a couple of times before I realized that the main point was that real world populations would never be in equilibrium because they could never meet the criteria. It needs to be reworded to be less confusing; this is especially important with an introductory article.

Comments The nominator for this article is my student who will no doubt gain much from this experience. I wish to clarify a statement in the rationale for nomination. Numerous authors played a role in the previous FA attempt - not just me! I operated as RandomReplicator; although I had the most edits most were correcting my own mistakes! Any feedback that would help the WikiProject AP Biology 2010 would be welcome on the appropriate talk page.--JimmyButler (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for now&mdash;Unfortunately I have to concur with some of the earlier comments. While the article has some wonderful material, at present it seems a little uneven and is perhaps disorganized in some places.
 * The lead fails to be an accessible and non-technical summary for the lay reader. It relies upon technical terms like hereditary material, genes, allele frequencies, phenotype and genetic drift without explanation. It also has more than four paragraphs and does not properly summarize the article, per WP:LEAD. (In fact, the "Summary" section at the end may do a better job.) Please see if you can modify it to make the material more approachable for the general population.
 * I am afraid you can not understand evolution, even a simplified version of it, unless you know basic vocabulary such as genes or hereditary material; however I have placed a link over Genes for those who do not understand these "technical terms" if you think I should continue adding links--as I have no room to place an explanation for each term--please tell me. .--Firekragg (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2011
 * I understand. However, my objection concerns the lack of explanation of those technical terms; not the use of the terms in themselves. This is critical because this is an introductory article. Anybody looking for an introduction shouldn't be expected to already have the background knowledge needed.
 * Besides, I don't think it will add too much to the size of the lead if you work the meaning into the context. For example, couldn't the lead say, "Third, there are variations among the alleles, or gene flavors, of offspring..."?&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * The lead has been greatly reduced. Much of the technical terms were added when the article expanded to include genetic drift as a major force influencing evolution whereas before the emphasis was exclusively natural selection. The author was extremely diligent and careful with accuracy; with reluctance - I have gutted it. Please review to determine if both length and complexity have been addressed. Note - this is version 592 of the lead; balancing specificity without losing the audience may require compromise!--JimmyButler (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The first two sections of the article body are good, but then the Genetic drift section again relies upon a technical term, alleles, that has not been explained. The reader may become slightly lost here.
 * I am not clear about the purpose of the "Hardy-Weinberg principle" section. The first line states the "Hardy-Weinberg principle". The second line then appears to demolish the principle by stating that equilibrium is impossible. The principle is not used elsewhere in the article, so what does it add? I think it needs to clarify why this is an important aspect of the general theory.
 * The "Modern synthesis" section has no sources and appears to be an uneven mix of history with explanation. I think it needs to be reworked and should focus more on the explanation than the history.
 * It seems like "Evidence for evolution" should follow the first section. I.e. first introduce the theory, then provide the evidence to support it, followed by details of underlying causes and effects of evolution.
 * The citations section varies between the use of abbreviated journal names and full names. I think one style should be chosen, preferably with full names as abbreviations can be obscure to a person unused to scientific citations.
 * Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sc => Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
 * CBE Life Sci Educ => CBE Life Sciences Education
 * Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) => Trends in Ecology & Evolution (Amsterdam)
 * Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. => Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
 * The "External links" section is fairly long and most appear to be of the same nature. There's already a "Further reading" section so it is not clear that such an extensive list is necessary. Please check that they all comply with WP:EXT.
 * Please check the Toolbox above. You're missing 'Alt' text.
 * Re journal names: suggest you wikilink those that we have articles for, then use ISO abbreviation or full name consistently, it won't matter which to me. I corrected the format of a couple of jstor links to match cite journal documentation. Ref 14 needs an ISBN. Rjwilmsi  10:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.