Wikipedia:Featured article review/Alfred Russel Wallace/archive1


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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC).

Alfred Russel Wallace

 * Notified: Rusty Cashman, Version 1.0 Editorial Team, WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, WikiProject Evolutionary biology, WikiProject History of Science, WikiProject Indonesia, WikiProject Malaysia, WikiProject Philosophy/Philosophers, WikiProject Southeast Asia, WikiProject Wales, 2022-08-27, 2021-07-03

I am nominating this featured article for review because of unsourced statements and a large "Further reading" section whose inclusion into the article needs to be evaluated, an incomplete "Other contributions" section, and a criticism section (which is not recommended in modern articles because of POV concerns.) Z1720 (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Unsourced statements: I've tidied up the text, adding citations and removing a few claims, so the whole text is now reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Further reading: removed the journal articles so it's a list exclusively of books which focus entirely on Wallace. That seems entirely apposite for this biographical article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Other contributions: as this was just a poetry section, renamed it to "Poetry". I've also trimmed it to a more apposite length. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Criticism section: Well, there isn't one, exactly; there is a section headed "Controversies". The activities named are to an extent not unusual in Victorian times, so I broadly agree that a non-neutral heading is probably inappropriate. I've renamed the section neutrally as "Other activities". Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've also added alt texts; run the citation bot; checked dab links, ext links, and reflinks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

- I believe I've addressed all your concerns? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been very busy in real life, but I have been following the edits on my phone and happy with this article's progress. When I have a moment I'll take a closer look at the article and either conduct edits or post additional concerns here (if I do not think I have the expertise to solve it). I also encourage others to leave comments and reviews here. Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Only a cursory first glance:


 * Sixteen instances of however suggest a prose review might be in order: see overuse of however and User:John/however. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Two of them are quoted; I've removed the rest. I've gone through the article copy-editing for British English prose, and have tightened up the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Similarly, can evolution be anything but subsequent ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it could be prior. This occurs only once. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Similar for also, see this suggestion. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There is some duplication of wikilinks which can be reviewed by installing this script (I am not opposed to some repeat links as we get deeper in to the article, but there may be some here that can be removed)-- judgement call. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Went through again and removed all the overlinks that the tool had marked in red boxes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a very large number of very long quotes, and I wonder if we can't do more rephrasing in Wikipedia's own words. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not specially many; I've paraphrased most of them. I think (however) that the account of how he discovered natural selection is well worth quoting in full. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The Awards, honours and memorials section is a list that can be organized thematically into prose/paragraphs. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't decipher a reason for MOS:BOLD here: The standard author abbreviation Wallace is used to indicate this person as the author when citing a botanical name. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentence is auto-generated by " ", boldface for the botanist and all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked beyond this standard stuff; might you be enticed to review this article as a content expert? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * please ping me if we get to a place where a full read-through is needed (I'd prefer to see some more topic-area experts weigh in first, since that I am not ... ) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I am the editor who originally put the article through FA. I believe it holds up pretty well. As far as the issue of too many long quotes, that issue came up during the original FA review. I argued successfully at the time that the quotes were the most effective way to convey Wallace's thoughts. I am not happy to loose the quote on invasive species from Island life, but I admit that the paraphrase it has been replaced with is pretty good. I agree with the commenter who said that we should not under any circumstances loose the quote about how he conceived of natural selection. It is too historically important to just paraphrase. One more thing I will mention when it comes to the issue of accuracy and appropriateness of the content is that just prior to putting it up for FA I was fortunate enough to have a fairly extensive correspondence with Charles H. Smith (historian), the curator of the Alfred Russel Wallace Page website and a noted expert with many publications about Wallace and his work. At one point he was kind enough to print out a copy of the article, mark it up with red ink, and mail it to me. I still have it. He helped with a few factual issues as well as with some issues of context and relative emphasis. I did enjoy pointing out that one of the factual issues he caught stemmed from some ambiguous wording in one his own published articles that I had used as source :) One thing I will do in the next few days is take a look for material published on Wallace in the past few years (since the article went through FA) to see if there have been any new discoveries about Wallace, or any changes in conclusions that should be reflected in the article. Thanks for letting me know this review was underway.Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rusty. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * One thing I notice that seems to be missing from the article is a brief discussion of Wallace's involvement in the debate over the origin of human races some of which occurred while Wallace was chairman of the anthropology chapter of the British association. The article talks about Wallace's ideas about the origin of the higher mental functions but nothing at all about the debate over the origin of human races that prompted him to publish them. The topic is sensitive of course since nearly all 19th century anthropological ideas were racist and/or sexist by modern standards, but it was an important debate at the time, and Wallace was an important participant in it. It is probably worth a few sentences and I have some good sources. I will do some more reading and then take a stab at it.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK I took a stab at it. I don't believe the article has any significant content issues. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * - three of us (all with knowledge of evolutionary biology) have checked over the article in different ways, and we all seem to think it's in decent shape. I've addressed all nom's and your initial concerns. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for the ping ... I'll get through as soon as I can then (will take a few days). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Noting the above comment about this being ready for review, and since I have some time now, I want to conduct a more thorough review of the article. I have made edits to things I could fix (MOS issues, etc.) but, since I am not a subject matter expert, I am posting some questions and concerns below that I hope can be addressed (and often, the answer is pointing out my own deficiencies of this topic, which are entirely justified to note.) I am also really excited that this is getting fixed up because 8 Jan 2023 is Wallace's 200th birthday, and I think it would be cool if this was a TFA on that date. Anyways, here are some comments:


 * I'm not sure all of the citations in the lede are necessary, as the info in the lede is supposed to be cited in the body of the article. "father of biogeography" probably needs a citation, but does Wallace being British need this? Are his various occupations explained in the article? Is the life on Mars fact included in the body?
 * The citations in the lead are to ward off, or in fact to rebut, criticism that the claims made there were uncited, so yes they are necessary. His occupations are described in the article body. Mars is covered in detail in the 'Astrobiology' section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If removing the citations in the lede will cause more problems in the future, then it's better to keep them in. Z1720 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "Like Darwin, Wallace did extensive fieldwork," I think this might be here as a connector from the first paragraph, but I don't think it is needed and it might cause the article to become a comparison of Wallace to Darwin, which I think diminishes Wallace's achievements. I think "Like Darwin" can be removed.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "His 1858 paper on the subject was jointly published that year together with extracts..." Should this be "His 1858 paper on the subject was jointly published that year with extracts..." or possibly reworded differently?
 * Reworded. The point is that the publication was intentionally simultaneous and together (the word "jointly" is commonly used, too). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "Wallace's 1904 book Man's Place in the Universe" Should Man's Place in the Universe be wikilinked (even if it is a redlink right now?
 * I guess the rule is that a redlink is good if everyone agrees that a) an article on that topic is needed, AND b) there is a realistic chance of someone's creating that article. I'm not sure either of these conditions are met here. We might make it a redirect, but it would either come back here, or would go to Planetary habitability: but Wallace is not mentioned there, and in any case that article is already linked in the same sentence, so adding it would be an overlink. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:REDLINK says that a red link should be used if the subject is notable and verifiable, so that an article on the topic could be created. If there has been critical commentary on the book, then I think a red link is warranted, and since the article says the book "was the first serious attempt by a biologist to evaluate the likelihood of life on other planets." I think it has a good argument for it to be notable. Z1720 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "He left London in 1837 to live with William and work as his apprentice for six years." Do we know where Wallace went in 1837 to live with William?
 * They seem to have moved several times in a short period to Rhayader in Radnorshire and then briefly Brecknockshire before they settled in Neath in Glamorganshire (this last is mentioned already). I'm not sure that a list of places where he briefly learnt surveying with his brother will be specially useful to readers really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the list of places is necessary, either, but perhaps it could be mentioned that he was moving around a lot. Maybe a sentence like, "He left London in 1837 to live with William and work as his apprentice for six years, and constantly relocated to several places in England during this time." or something similar. Z1720 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.

Since this is a longer article, it might take me several days to get through my review. Stopping at "Financial struggles". Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Additional comments:


 * "Unlike Darwin, Wallace began his career as a travelling naturalist who already believed in the transmutation of species." Similar to above, I don't think it is necessary to start this section with a comparison to Darwin, as his accomplishments are great enough that they don't need the comparison.
 * Done.


 * "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, a controversial work of popular science published anonymously in 1844." I'm not sure what the relevancy of the information after the comma is in Wallace's biography, and perhaps can be removed.
 * Done.

Stopping at "Defence of Darwin and his ideas" Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I have done all the dabbling I can do in this very fine article, and can find nothing else to quibble about. Once is satisfied, I can then also be considered a Close without FARC. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear, and glad you're back in the land of the living. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Me, too :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I read through the rest of the article and found no additional concerns. Checked images for alt text and upright/px and everything seems good. Skimmed through the references and don't see any formatting concerns. I'm ready to declare Close without FARC. Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.