Talk:Sociobiology: The New Synthesis
 | Sociobiology: The New Synthesis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: November 7, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Sociobiology: The New Synthesis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 17:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this one. Vanamonde (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]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:
- All issues fixed
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- No MOS issues
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- Sources appropriately formatted
- 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:
- Sources are solid
- C. It contains no original research:
- No issues
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig's tool only highlights mirrors and quotes.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No issues with stability
- 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:
- Image licenses check out to the best of my abilities
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Captions are fine
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Nice work, passing now
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
[edit]- Personally I think the "contents" section would flow smoother as "The section argues" or such rather than "Wilson argues"
- Done.
- I think the Magpie image would be clearer at the normal 220px width, since it's the behavior we're interested in
- Done.
- The last sentence of "contents" is rather odd handing all by itself: I think it would be clearer in the intro to that level 4 sub-section, with perhaps a "in the last chapter" to clarify its position.
- Done.
- Do we need both bullets and numbers?
- Reformatted.
Apologies for the delay: I've been away. I'll try to get it done soon.
- "attracted a large number of reviews" might not "commentary" or "critical attention" be more precise here than "reviews"?
- Less, I think - the reviews are at least countable. I've said "critical reviews".
- "The paper described the effect as "a period of ferment", naming the "monumental" book as the "yeast"." This is a tad confusing to the (many) folks unaware of the role of yeast in fermentation...though I don't know if there's a good way around that.
- I've wikilinked and glossed the quotation.
- The first part of the contemporary reception section mentions the response to the suggestion that human behavior is genetically determined, but the nature of any such claim in the book is not made explicit: I'd suggest adding a sentence along the lines of "reviewers alleged that Wilson was arguing..." or something.
- Done.
- Can we find links for the disciplines mentioned in Eberhard's review?
- Done.
- "She objected strongly to what she considered "confused and misleading" discussion of altruism and group selection" I think it would help to know precisely what Wilson's argument in this case was.
- Glossed.
- "reviewed it for BioScience." perhaps "reviewed the book" or "reviewed Sociobiology would be better.
- Done.
- There's some tense variation in discussing the reviews.
- Fixed, I believe.
- "for its coverage including man" This is a tad confusing
- Fixed.
- We've four consecutive paragraphs beginning with a profession; can you switch it up?
- Tweaked.
- Sentence beginning "However, she objected to the claim " is very long
- Split.
- I think some of the sentences in Lenski's paragraph could have clearer in-text attribution; along the line of "He argued..." especially for the "book raised uncomfortable issues" etc
- Attributed a bit more.
- "Lenski however took Wilson more openly than that, noting Wilson's precursors, Julian Huxley, George Gaylord Simpson, Dobzhansky and others of the modern synthesis. They tried repeatedly to talk to sociologists, and in Lenski's view that was again necessary. Further, the nature-nurture dichotomy was evidently false, and continued rejection of biology only invited "a reductionist response on the part of biologists." " I'm a bit confused by this entire section, to be honest. If I'm reading it correct Lenski is agreeing with Wilson is saying that a nature-nurture dichotomy is incorrect, and pointing out that his predecessors had already said this; am I right?
- Glossed. He's saying that there's no reason for Wilson and sociology to fight, as the supposed dichotomy doesn't exist.
- Some more tense mismatches with Kleiman..
- Fixed.
- "Among his biases, insects and genetics were overrepresented" This makes it sound like insects and genetics are biases, which is cool colloquially but sounds a bit odd here, right? Perhaps "Examples of his biases included the over-representation of ..."
- Done.
- More tenses in the Wagner paragraph
- Fixed.
- However, he thought [...], and it failed to cover..." I find something odd about this structure. Should it be "as it failed"?
- Done.
- Another present tense with Geller
- Done.
- "many of the ethnocentric assumptions of early sociobiology" I'm sure these were present, but I wonder if we could have an example?
- We did - male domination, ignoring the female gatherers for the male hunters, for instance.
- "Many of the sloppier early conclusions" Likewise
- Resulting from the same assumptions.
- I think the one-sentence paragraph would fit better with the retrospective
- Moved.
- Couple more tense mismatches in the first paragraph of the last section, which could also afford being split.
- Done.
- Tense also in the last paragraph.
- Done.
- I think the "reception" paragraph of the lead could use some expansion; particularly, I think the detail about what parts were well received and what were not would be helpful.
- Done.
- I wonder if a brief "background" would help, before the contents of the book? As in, the academic context that Wilson was writing in?
- Added.
I apologize for this being a longer review than usual: I've been busy, but given the subject's importance I wish to give it a thorough going-over. I haven't read the book myself, but I'm familiar with a good many of its arguments. This is a fine article, and I look forward to passing it soon. I do wish to do another read-through later. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Second run
[edit]- Can we find a link for "heliolithic cultures" in the image caption?
- Done.
- I'm not too happy with the word "sloppier", in retrospect, and whether it's used or not I still think an example would be good.
- Removed the adj, and added an example with ref.
- "and other more recent ideas, such as the IQ controversy" I don't know that "ideas" is the best word here: "developments"?
- Done.
- "Once again, they wrote" this reads odd, because I doubt they wrote the same thing previously. Missing quote marks?
- Yes, well spotted.
That's all. If I'm not around when you finish up I'll pass it tomorrow. Feel free to revert my tweaks. Vanamonde (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Two notable reviews that should be included
[edit]First, kudos for an in depth article discussing this important work and an exhaustive summary of its reception. Yet, for all that, there are a couple of key reviews that are left out, notably, the initial reviews in Science[1] and Nature.[2] I will make a point of incorporating summaries of these into the article soon. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- As I stated over at Talk:E. O. Wilson, I agree that adding a discussion of these sources would be prima facie DUE. Generalrelative (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- ^ Sade, Donald Stone (1975). "The evolution of sociality". Science. 190 (4211): 261–263. doi:10.1126/science.190.4211.261.
- ^ Wynne-Edwards, V. C. (1976). "Bull's-eye of sociality". Nature. 259 (5540): 253–254. doi:10.1038/259253a0.