Talk:Evolutionary developmental biology/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) 13:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an interesting and slightly challenging exercise. Good work in producing a reasonably accessible but non-trivial introduction to the subject. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Main list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Lead

Layout

Words to watch

Fiction (N/A)

Lists
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:
None that I could identify.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
No gaps obvious to me. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
As far as I can tell. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

By section

Lead

OK

History

OK

Recapitulation

OK

Evolutionary morphology

OK.

The modern evolutionary synthesis of the 1930s

OK

The lac operon

Capitalisation of "lac operon" inconsistant.

Fixed.

OK

The birth of evo-devo and a second synthesis

Why is Haeckel's interpretation of evolutionary embryology labelled racist? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to drop it, actually. The source says "In Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Gould demonstrated how Ernst Haeckel had misrepresented the field of evolutionary embryology and made it into an unscientific and racist doctrine." Haeckel used embryology to support his views on race. But I think we don't need to go into that here.

Fair enough, I am not familiar with Haeckel's views on race, more with his illustrations.

OK

The control of body structure

Deep homology

OK.

Gene toolkit

OK.

The embryo's regulatory networks

OK

The origins of novelty

I have not been able to find support for Novelty may arise by mutation-driven changes in gene regulation, probably because I cant access the appropriate reference, but possibly because I couldn't find it in the one I can access. Are you able to quote the material supporting this statement? I am not challenging veracity - it looks quite plausible, so not a crisis if you can't access it either.

"such changes largely occur through mutations in the cis-regulatory sequences of pleiotropic developmental regulatory loci and of the target genes within the vast networks they control." Sean B. Carroll, 2008 (ref 36). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I read that and missed the implication. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Variations in the toolkit

OK

Consolidation of epigenetic changes

OK

Eco-evo-devo

The section doesn't really say much, and I assume it is only there to mention the field as an offshoot of the subject in the interests of broader coverage.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

<ref name=Shalizi>{{cite web |last1=Shalizi |first1=Cosma |title=Review: The Self-Made Tapestry by Philip Ball |url=http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/self-made-tapestry/ |publisher=University of Michigan |accessdate=14 October 2016}}</ref> Link not working. Current link appears to be http://bactra.org/reviews/self-made-tapestry/

Updated URL.

References

OK.

Thank you very much for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]