Talk:Lysenkoism/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Guettarda (talk · contribs) 05:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review

First pass, some thing that jumped out at me

Lead

para 1: Lysenkoism began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964. While this bookends Lysenko's career and influence, it feels like a bit of a stretch. Lysenko started calling his techniques Michurinism c. 1935 in an attempt to shoehorn his ideas onto Michurin's. As for the end date, Lysenko remained in his position until 1965, and because it had made its way into textbooks, Lysenkoism continued to have a major impact for another decade or more.

Yes. Said it was in the mid-20th century.

The first reference points to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I don't believe that dictionaries are appropriate sources for the meaning of scientific (or pseudoscientific) concepts, but more importantly, the dictionary entry doesn't support the idea that Lysenkoism is Lamarckism. (It is Lamarckism, or at least Neo-Lamarckism, but the source doesn't support the claim.)

Removed: we don't need any citation there actually.

Quotes around "gene", "natural selection" - these aren't actual quotes, and it isn't really a "words as words", so I'd suggest removing them.

Done.

Lysenko's claims

While the paragraphs are numbered, this isn't a list. I'd suggest getting rid of the numbers.

Done.

This section relies heavily on Charles Leone's 1952 article, and I have my doubts about it as a source. Leone's work is a bit polemic, and it isn't a dispassionate historical look at Lysenkoism - it's written in the thick of things, and is too much of a point-by-point refutation. With another almost 70 years of perspective, I'm not sure we should be relying so directly on Leone.

Good point. Cut down Leone greatly, added newer sources.

- In particular, I have a problem with this: In reality, the technique was neither new nor Soviet (it was discovered at Michigan State College in 1854. The school now known as Michigan State University was founded in 1855 and classes didn't start until 1857. So Leone's date is wrong. Following his usage in terms of naming the school also creates a bit of an anachronism. While it was called Michigan State College when Leone was writing in 1952, it was not called that in the mid-19th century. While one error does not invalidate Leone's work, it does seem like we need to rely on other, preferably more recent, sources.

Removed the mention of the College.

Rise

The second and third paragraphs of this section lack citations, as does the second half of the fifth paragraph.

Cited.

Fall

Reading this, it seems like Lysenkoism fell with Stalin, but both Lysenko's Wikipedia bio and this article suggest that even after Stalin's death, Lysenko remained in favour until the death of Khrusschev.

The section already says that the ban went only in the mid-1960s, and that there was repression under Kruschev. I've copy-edited the section to make this clearer.

Legacy

The article suggests that Lysenkoism fell with Lyseenko, but this article discusses a rise in Lysenkoism in modern Russia. Have you considered mentioning this for completeness?

Done.

Other

The article has an overlinking problem.

Removed all per Highlight duplicate links tool.

This article says Lysenko denied DNA - but DNA wasn't truly "discovered" in popular science until the 1950s, and wasn't popularized until the 1960s - long after these theories began in the 1920s. Not defending these ideas, just pointing out this article makes no sense. Seems to be based around only a handful of sources, primarily one: "Joravsky, David (1986) [1970]. The Lysenko Affair. University Of Chicago Press." Lysenko's theories, some could argue, were not totally incorrect since we later discovered that there are "revolutionary" genetic changes that occur (though via DNA, not by some random force as described in these theories). 2603:7000:8C01:1513:F5EC:38CC:FB6:8C07 (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Nice article, and good job getting it to this state. I've always found Lysenko fascinating (despite my vast admiration for Vavilov). Guettarda (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, and I'll get to this very shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good Chiswick Chap. Thanks for your work improving this article. Congrats! Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]