Wikipedia:Peer review/Introduction to evolution/archive1

Introduction to evolution
I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed two GA nominations already. Since the last it has been improved greatly and we would like any feedback on how we can push this important article to GA or even FA status. Thanks. ornis ( t ) 03:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments from User:TimVickers

 * 1) Why is the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium discussed? Is this really appropriate fro a non-technical introduction to the subject? I'd recommend just removing references to this and turning the section into discussion of the conditions under which evolution will occur and when it will not occur.
 * 2) Pre- and post-zygotic are unnecessary jargon as section headings. Tim Vickers 03:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit
This article is much better than the last time I read it. Kudos to the editors. My points are mostly regarding prose and organization - they are minor. I hope to see this article promoted through GAC and FAC in the next few months.

Content:
 * Evolution is a well-supported explanation for a given set of data, not a mere hypothesis. - No one has yet said it was a "mere hypothesis" in the article - I wouldn't weaken the statement by introducing this phrase.
 * I would use moths for the entire defintion section - focusing on one example is helpful for those unfamiliar with the material.
 * I still do feel that the Hardy-Weinberg example confuses rather than elucidates the general principles of evolution.
 * These fossils serve as a chronological record, documenting the emergence of new, more complex species from simpler ancestral forms. - Do all fossils document simple to complex, because that sounds like "progress".
 * In the "descent with modification" section, could you add some detail to the examples? How are forelimbs similar yet different?
 * Perhaps you could explain better why we look to embryonic similarities to classify animals and separate this from the false embryos-renact-evolution theory?
 * For example, siblings share the closest relationship possible, and thus have very similar DNA sequences. - wouldn't this be "nearly", since twins, specifically, share the closest?
 * I would remind the reader what "prezygotic" and "postzygotic" means when those terms reappear as section headings.

Paragraph structure is a weakness of the article.
 * EX: Darwin's explanation of the mechanisms of evolution relies on his theory of natural selection, a theory he presented in the famous text The Origin of Species (published in 1859). The modern theory of natural selection incorporates five basic ideas: - I would put all of the Darwin material in one paragraph and all of the "modern evolution" material in another set of paragraphs.
 * EX: Embryo section could be better divided.
 * EX: In the speciation section, I would begin the third paragraph with "A common criticism".

There are far too many "this" and "these" statements - they are hard to find the referents far and often confuse the prose. Try to reduce the use of "this".
 * The lead has several in a row.
 * Genes that do not help organisms reproduce may become rarer or be eliminated from the population. This is called natural selection. - According to the paragraph structure of the lead, natural selection is only the elimination of genes. This does not seem correct and contradicts later information.
 * EX: From this, relationships can be established between present and extinct species, allowing paleontologists to construct family trees that link all life forms.

Layout:
 * I have rearranged the layout a bit. I hope you think it is an improvement. I wasn't sure where to place the tree of life image, but it must be moved as it is just kind of floating around near the top.

The article could use a careful copy editor:
 * EX: Natural selection does not involve "progress" towards an ultimate goal; in fact, it is not goal-driven. - unnecessary second clause
 * EX: This reality is evident in the struggles species are currently facing as environments change because of global warming. - wordy and important elements are at end of sentence
 * EX: In addition, studies of the anatomical and genetic similarities between present-day species serve as additional evidence for evolution. - repetitive sentence
 * EX: Nowadays, many more fossils have been discovered and identified. - "nowadays" is colloquial - use a rough date
 * EX: The fossil record also provides examples of transitional species that provide evidence of ancestral links between species that exist today - betwen those that exist today and what?
 * EX: Sometimes terms are put into quotation marks and sometimes they are italicized. The style should be consistent across the article.
 * EX: On the other hand, if the organisms are distant relations, these molecules will be more different. - just different; there is no comparison
 * EX: Therefore, this implies that these two species, humans and chimpanzees, share a closer evolutionary relationship as well - Closer than what?
 * EX: The classic definition, used here, was developed by Ernst Mayr (1904-2005). - used here is unnecessary
 * EX: Sentences at the beginning of "Different perspectives" are a bit stubby.

The box at the end reads ''As Darwin's work spread and became better known, references to it began appearing in the popular culture of the day. Some of the better-known Victorian references to it include'' - Please reword this so that the inclusion of the Tennyson quote makes sense. Even if others used the Tennyson quote to refer to evolution, it was not written as a reference to Darwinism, which is what this explanation implies.

I hope this helps. Awadewit | talk  22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)