Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mechanisms and processes of evolution/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mechanisms and processes of evolution

the following article is very well cited, the factual accuracy and content seems to be perfect. in all i think it meets FA criteria. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—It is a well-written article that has the potential to be FA. But I have a few concerns that prevent me from supporting the article for FA:
  • The lead may be on the short side. See WP:Lead#Length.

replied on users talkpage.

Please keep the discussion here. In the body of the article I see a "Polyploidy", "Artificial selection" and "Macroevolution" sections. Unless I'm mistaken, these aren't summarized in the lead. — RJH (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• • There are a significant number of paragraphs, with important contributions, that have no references. For example, this needs a reference: "Before the process of evolution began, it is thought that billions of years ago, chemicals organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule." I didn't want to go slapping {{fact}} templates everywhere, but it may be needed.
    • Y Done To be more specific, the "Polyploidy" section and most of the "Hybridization" and "Artificial selection" sections are missing suitable references.—RJH (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

i have added citations wherever required. Sushant gupta 06:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you're going to have to add many more than I see now. To me there are too many key facts that are not backed up by citation. As an example: "This leads some scientists to speculate that life is a genetic continuum rather than a series of self-contained species." Really? Who are these scientists and where is this viewpoint presented in a refereed media? The "Adaptation" section is more like what I would expect to see. — RJH (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Is "hybridisation" a UK spelling? Or should the word be spelled "hybridization"?
    • Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I see some space em-dashes. The spaces around the em-dashes need to be removed.

    i don't agree with this point. they are just in ref part not in the article content. also the page has been generated in summary style article and all that stuff has been taken from evolution article which is recently featured. thanks, Sushant gupta 13:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    I just fixed the multiple spaced em-dashes in the body of the text for you. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • For the most part the article does a good job of explaining the jargon. However, it does not explain alleles, meiosis, CCR5, transposons, or homozygotes.

link have been embedded and notifiation for introduction to evolution has also been placed at the top of the page. thanks, Sushant gupta 14:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You should explain jargon when you use it. The average reader should not need to drill down to another page in order to understand this page. Sorry but your approach doesn't seem sufficient for an FA-quality article.— RJH (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• • The following sentence in the lead is a little unclear to me: "Genetic drift is random change in the frequency of alleles, caused by the random sampling of a generation's genes during reproduction." First it presupposes that the reader understands an allele and why it has a frequency. Second, the "random sampling" bit seems a bit mysterious. Could this sentence be clarified and perhaps simplified?

i don't agree. below down it is explained in the genetic drift section. thankyou. also link to the main article has been given for the ease of readers. thanks, Sushant gupta 14:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To me this is insufficient. The reader should not need to read down in the body of the article in order to understand the lead. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article. Jargon is covered above.— RJH (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• • For "fixation of slightly deleterious mutations", I interpret "fixation" as a behavior pattern, rather than a physical change. Is that the meaning here?

you mean to say Biological trait! those are the characters which are the attribute of an organism that allows it to be compared with another. genetic drift results it to become common or rare over successive generations. thanks, Sushant gupta 14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Is the bulleted list really necessary in the "Basic processes involved" section? Could that section be reworked into ordinary prose?
  • Have all of the concerns from the failed GA been addressed?—RJH (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose and suggest merge-delete. This article is a huge duplication of material in evolution. We don't need two of these articles to maintain. I've tagged it for merging and will nominate it for deletion, should the merge fail. Best regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks more to me like a "main article" to Evolution's Mechanisms section. However, there is a definite issue with differences in the way some concept are related to each others (e.g. This articles' "processes" vs. Evolution's "outcomes). Circeus 02:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

   * 1 Basic processes involved
   * 2 Genetic change in individuals
         o 2.1 Mutation
         o 2.2 Polyploidy
         o 2.3 Hybridization
   * 3 Genetic change in populations
         o 3.1 Natural selection
         o 3.2 Artificial selection
         o 3.3 Gene flow
         o 3.4 Genetic drift
   * 4 Evolutionary processes
         o 4.1 Adaptation
         o 4.2 Speciation
         o 4.3 Co-evolution
   * 5 Macroevolution
   * 6 See also
   * 7 Further readings
   * 8 References

   * 1 Heredity
   * 2 Variation
         o 2.1 Mutation
         o 2.2 Recombination
   * 3 Mechanisms
         o 3.1 Natural selection
         o 3.2 Genetic drift
         o 3.3 Gene flow
   * 4 Outcomes
         o 4.1 Adaptation
         o 4.2 Co-evolution
         o 4.3 Co-operation
         o 4.4 Speciation
         o 4.5 Extinction
   * 5 Evolutionary history of life
         o 5.1 Origin of life
         o 5.2 Common descent
         o 5.3 Evolution of life
   * 6 History of evolutionary thought
   * 7 Social and cultural views
   * 8 Applications in technology
   * 9 Further reading
   * 10 External links
   * 11 References

As we can see above, with only minor reshuffling and some glaring omissions, it reproduces about 2/3 of the evolution article. I don't see the need for discussion. It is very, very obvious and very, very simple. Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

pls try to understand the reason and purpose why this article is important. it is written as the main article for evolution's mechanisms and it covers various other aspects what you termed as ommisions. thanks, Sushant gupta 06:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The omission is in your article, and it's recombination.

Look, we already have evolution, which covers the same material in some depth, and we have introduction to evolution. There is neither a need for a better explanation of jargon (which the intro article does perfectly already), nor for a duplicate that is expanded by only 1/3 (geez, that would be a lot of articles if each was only expanded by 1/3). If you want to write at length about evolution, please find wikibooks:Evolutionary Biology, or expand one of the articles on a specific topic, such as genetic recombination. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

can't you lend me some time to improve this article once again. why are you so eager to delete it. give me a month time pls. don't be so brutal. thanks, Sushant gupta 06:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki to wikibooks, place a link on evolution, and all your worries go away. Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

At Talk:Evolution, another editor suggested breaking the article up and using the parts to bolster the individual articles about gene flow, drift, speciation, etc. etc. If you wanted to, you could then work on one of those articles specifically to improve it to FA level. I'm willing to help you with that if you like. Does this sound a good solution to you? Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)