Talk:Cospeciation

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

I have added my comments to your article. For generally formatting, I would not double space after periods. Also make sure your citation list is in a separate section. Otherwise it looks good. Let me know if you have questions about comments/changes. Hedgehog1017 (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I added comments on the "Edit" mode. If you have an questions or anything, just let me know! Shelby234 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added some few comments in the edit section. Good job overall! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SISI16 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, I added some comments to your article. Hope you enjoy them and learn from your mistakes. Good job. --Greenhouseguy420 (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Greenhouseguy420[reply]

Great job, I added a couple comments. The biggest problem I noticed were some sentence structure and grammatical issues, so maybe do a couple proofreading rounds. b.kaidra (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking great. I have just a few suggestions. I'm not adding it as comments because I think it will get too confusing since you've already started going through them. First, the first part of the lead section is pretty wordy and repetitive, and I think this is due to you clarifying things in response to peer review. Just read back through it at some point and try and condense as much as possible your description of cospeciation. Also, some people are not familiar with you use of "mirroring" or "congruent" in terms of describing the phylogenies, so you could add in clarifying descriptions such as the phylogenies match, or are nearly identical, or are a mirror images of one another. It also might be nice if you say a bit on who Farenholtz what (German entomologist, right? just that level of detail, if it is one of you references). The same with Dan Janzen (just a short descriptor). You may already be working on this, but the first paragraph under the Farenholtz rule section needs at least one citation at the end. And for when you start adding in your links, there is a nice Wikipedia page about "host switching" that you could link too, and I'm sure there are others as well. Advevol (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to peer reviews

Thanks for edits. I'm going to break my responses to the suggestions up by paragraph

Intro Paragraph: Most of the suggestions were about rewording or grammatical issues, which I went ahead and made the changes to. As for further explaining the idea of phylogenies "mirroring" each other; I agree with you that it would be good to further explain what I mean by that. However, there is not an easy way to briefly explain that without going down a rabbit hole about Fahrenholz's rule itself. Since I have a separate section for Fahrenholz's rule, I am hoping that someone will look to that section if they want further explanation. An image of "mirroring" phylogenies might be the best approach but I'm not sure I can do that due to copyright issues. As for explaining the difference between coevolution and cospeciation; once again, I agree that would be beneficial to include. However, if I do that, I feel like I am going to have to explain coevolution. My goal in the first paragraph is to try and focus on introducing the reader to cospeciation without going down a rabbit hole of introducing a second concept. I could potentially include a section that outlines the difference between coevolution and cospeciation. I just don't want to overwhelm the common layperson with different concepts in the introduction.

Fahrenholz's Rule section: I did clean up some of the grammatical issues and reorganize some parts of this section. I also hopefully added some clarification to terms that might not have been so clear. Cladistics have made it easier for scientists to test Fahrenholz's rule across the board, not just in particular instances. I am trying avoid filling sections up with examples of each concept when I have a section dedicated with examples. I have also not seen anything that says whether ecological fitting or Fahrenholz's rule is more supported.

False Incongruence section: Each subsection was pretty straight forward. There are some good figures illustrating each type of false incongruence but I'm pretty sure I can't use them due to copyright stuff which is a bummer. As for what controls the presence of a parasite in the "missing the boat" example, that only occurs when the parasite species is not found with all populations of the host (possibly due to extinction). — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamWill (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]