Talk:Orthogenesis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kostas20142 (talk · contribs) 15:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC) I will take up this GA nomination

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well written. No major mistakes found, some minor improvements have been made by the nominator.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All in-line citations are from reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research found
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations or plagiarism found.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main aspects of the topics are sufficiently covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit warring or content dispute
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. 1 non-compliant image was removed. If it is decided to be replaced, please ensure that license tags are ok and source is included
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	All GA criteria are met. Some improvements like those in comments section can be made but the article is definitely well organized with sufficient citations. You may wish to request peer review for advice on improvement to FA status.

images

• File:Henry Fairfield Osborn.jpg provides no source or creator, so it might be an issue. Fixing tho or changing the image would be a good idea.

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• The rest of the images are ok

comments

• The word "controversial" in lead isn't really neutral. Would you mind omitting it??

Done.

• "More extreme versions of orthogenesis....": This phrase could be perceived as an implication that orthogenesis is extreme, in Wikipedia's voice, which isn't neutral. Could someone rephrase it??

Done.

• "...the idea of "Progress" (with a capital letter, meaning a progressionist philosophy) in evolutionary biology ...": Although not 100%,necessary, I feel that it would be better to change it as following: "....the idea of Progress, a progressionist philosophy, in evolutionary biology ..."

Done, we don't have to go into Ruse's distinction between Progress and progress here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Biology has largely rejected the idea that evolution is guided in any way, but it appears that the..." appears like WP:WEASEL. And the whole section might need to be rewritten (or even removed and added as link at "See also" since it's significant relevance to the subject is not explained)

There are two issues here: relevance, and weaselliness.

Relevance: The section is certainly relevant because the idea of guidance in evolution was the core of orthogenesis. Therefore, anything that seems to involve guidance is directly of interest, even if, as with modern facilitated variation, the mechanism is purely natural selection.

You are right on that --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Weasel: Since the section is relevant, I don't believe there is any slippery weasel-wording here, though I've removed "it appears that" in case that was worrying you. I'm happy to cite any part of the wording in more detail, though the existing (Baxter et al) source covers it pretty well.

Just to clarify, I most certainly don't mean it was intended. I meant that the "Biology has largely rejected..." part gave me that impression. Adding an additional source for that would be great, however I can proceed to promotion without it in terms of GA status. --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, many thanks for the review, much appreciated. I've added sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

other modifications

• "made the use of the term orthogenesis taboo" → "made the use of the term orthogenesis taboo ".

Italicised.

..