Talk:Homoplasy

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aghelms. Peer reviewers: Akward483, Lindsaypittman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to "Homology"?

Could any expert clarify the relations between homoplasy and homology. It looks like these are based upon the same idea, however, used in different fields, and therefore, there will be no single expert for both.HJJHolm (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lead section that is easy to understand 1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes, I think you did a very good job of explaining what homoplasy is and the context that it is used in. 2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? I think that you could add another sentence that explains what you will address in the rest of the article. 3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? The lead is good, it just needs a few things added to it. 4. Is anything missing? The lead in just needs to touch on the topics that will be discussed in the wiki. 5. Is anything redundant? I do not see any redundancy in the lead.

A clear structure 6. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? 7. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

Balanced coverage 8. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? I would like to see you write a little more under the etymology section. 9. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? I think you did a good job picking the sections. 10. Is anything off-topic? I think you stayed on topic. You do address topics that are confused with your topic a lot, though, and that is kind of confusing. You talk more about what homoplasy is not rather than what it is. 11. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? I am not really sure what this means but I think that the perspective is good. 12. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? I like your viewpoint and you make the topic easy to understand. 13. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, I think your article is very neutral.

Neutral content 14. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No I do not. 15. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." I did not catch any of these words/phrases. 16. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." You did express some opinions in the article. 17. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No, I think your article stayed very neutral.

Reliable sources 18. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Yes, I think you added sources in all of the correct places. 19. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No, I think you did a good job of using all of your sources equally. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! No, I think you cited everything that needed to be sourced.

I think this was really good! I think that all you need to do is add to your intro and probably expound upon your two hypotheses more! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsaypittman (talk • contribs) 01:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear examples

Could someone add some clear examples? The archetypical one is wings of bats and wings of eagles (or wings of bees), but I think at the least 3 different examples, clearly mentioned, would be best. Right now the article lacks, and people, from purely reading the description alone, can not imagine much at all. For example, I have no idea what homoplasy on the genetic level should imply. I only know of examples from morphology, so if the article claims that homoplasy works on the genetic level as well, a clear example should be demonstrated WITHIN the article here; right now it only links to an outside reference which is not sufficient, IMO. People expect wikipedia to bring together information, links should only be there to provide verification + additional proof and reproducibility, but not externalize on explanations onto volatile webpages. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:8920:7EEB:D50A:6466 (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]