Talk:Asa Gray/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: I'll have a go at this. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead

The lead is rather short. In particular it doesn't mention (let alone summarize) his contribution to evolutionary thought (something the article body doesn't handle too well either, see below). Needs some expansion, probably after you've addressed the comments below.
- @Chiswick Chap: check pls. HalfGig talk 20:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard professor

~~No need for his name in the Whipple photo.~~
- Done. HalfGig talk 11:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Asa Gray disjunction"

~~What is intended by "Neogene, which is not the "early Tertiary", ..."? Some explanation is missing.~~
- IIRC, @Sminthopsis84: helped me with that part. So I'm asking Sminth to chime in, if that's okay. HalfGig talk 12:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Won't do her any harm to join in a GAN occasionally!
    - Done Went back to the academic article and changed this. Can't recall exactly how this happened. HalfGig talk 17:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Later career

~~"largely promoting Darwinian ideas" ... which he didn't believe in. Hmm?~~
- See your Relationship with Darwin section below HalfGig talk 17:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Research regarding the American West

~~This looks a good place for an illustration or two, how about from Plantae Wrightianae for example? Or Plummera?~~
- You already added one that takes up the section. Do you think it'd look ok with another? HalfGig talk 11:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very likely. We can have one left, one right a bit further down.
    - I added one from the area being discussed, the American West, and it seems to fit fine. HalfGig talk 19:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - No problem with the fit. Of course it'd be nicer to have Gray's own work to illustrate Plummera. Ideally a photo of the herbarium sheet! But the section certainly looks brighter with the examples.
Done HalfGig talk 17:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Darwin

"Gray strongly objected to the idea of transmutation of species"; "Agassiz was adamantly opposed to the idea of evolution, whereas Gray was a staunch supporter". Perhaps something needs to be explained here, given the apparent straight contradiction!
- This has come up before. Please see thread above on the talk page, Talk:Asa_Gray#Gray_and_Special_Creation, especially User:Sminthopsis84's response. Then please let me know what you think. HalfGig talk 14:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not asking about special creation, readers will just have to be very attentive to catch that point which is definitely tricky but at least logically consistent (I do think it could be made less confusing, btw), but about 'transmutation of species', i.e. evolution including speciation.

species concept ... transmutation of species ... theistic evolution (needs to be wikilinked somewhere) ... pangenesis ... the rather long section seems to me to need some subdivision and reorganisation to point up the major intellectual ideas and their timeline of development in Gray's mind. Perhaps subsections on the Darwin friendship, theistic evolution, maybe more?

- User:Chiswick Chap...this section is so intertwined, so let's do a sanity check here. I've added the theistic evoluion bit here as that is clearly where Gray stands. Sminth hit it on the head on the talk page on Jan 24th: "Gray is arguing for natural selection being "governed" by a creator. "One, indeed, who believes, from revelation or any other cause, in the existence of such a Creator, the fountain and Source of all things in heaven above and in the earth beneath, will see in natural variation, the struggle for life, and natural selection, only the order or mode in which this Creator, in his own perfect wisdom, sees fit to act."" Let me know what you think at this point. I want to do the lead last. HalfGig talk 18:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's already better. But when you say "Gray strongly objected to the idea of transmutation of species" you basically need to say when that was, and that he changed his views later, or the section is incomprehensible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chiswick Chap...I just made one edit. Let's collaborate on the next. I'm not sure Gray ever changed his mind. I think we need to clarify his position better. He seems to object to no genetic connection and hybridization the most. Inputs on wording welcome for next edit. Here are some quotes, all from Dupree:

(p. 217) "Gray formulated in the early '50s (that's 1850s) a clearly concept of a species as the basic unit of taxonomy and as a description of a genuine discontinuity in nature....(species) stood to one another as parent and offspring....as time went on...a true genetic connection between all members of a species, became by far the more important for him...Like breeds like, was his primary article of faith. In comparison, special creation of a species in the beginning was of minor importance. He believed it, yes, but the beginning was lost in the mist, no direct evidence for it existed...crucial for him...was the question...whether one species could undergo a transmuation into another...in one generation...Permanency of present species...seemed to him to be necessary if natural history was to have any meaning" (local conditions can vary)..."but an eventual check was placed on variation by the inability of unlike species to breed together"...(this is what creates the species border)

(p. 218) "he was also a campaigner against the crude kind of popular transmutation theory which made farmers claim they had stalks on which two kinds of grain were growing simultaneously...characteristics of a plant...were determined by the characteristics of an organic ancestor"...(he was opposed to spontaneous generation)

HalfGig talk 11:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So he was a reluctant convert, but all the same he supported and encouraged Darwin, precisely on transmutation. That needs to be said briefly and simply, and then we're complete. All that remains after that is to redo the lead to summarize each section of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap check edit just made. HalfGig talk 13:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

~~Section is a somewhat bitty list - one entry is a five-word sentence. Perhaps group these into themed paragraphs such as 'In his lifetime', 'Posthumous honors'. Those could be subsections.~~
- Done HalfGig talk 11:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That does look better.

Works

~~Please wikilink the co-authors. |authorlink2= etc~~
- Done HalfGig talk 11:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find it odd to have "Gray, Asa" in every entry of "Works", as they're all redundant in the context. Why not just have the list bullet and date, except for "with Torrey, John" etc when there are co-authors?
- Done HalfGig talk 11:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

~~There are different Darwin Correspondence Project sources with identical text. Please clarify and relabel.~~
- Done HalfGig talk 14:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 1957 one says it's now not linked?
    - Yes. It looks like they combined that and the remaining web page into the new url I dropped in. HalfGig talk 19:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

I'm satisfied that with these changes the article is well up to the required standard and am happy to award GA status now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]