Jump to content

Talk:Spontaneous generation/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 14:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to review this interesting-looking article.

Many thanks as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments

[edit]

References

[edit]

Some of the citation footnotes do not connect specific material in the article with specific sources (MOS:NOTES). Not GA, but I have also included below some suggested URLs where they have not already been provided. I have ignore the formatting style, as it is not a criteria for GAN:

Noted with thanks.
  • The link for Ref 6 (Wiener) leads to a general website. Is a more specific URL available?
  • Not that I can find. I've added volume and page nos. A shambolic website.
  • Ref 7 (McLaughlin) has a dead link.
  • Fixed.
  • Added.
  • Added.
  • Added.
  • Added. None seen.
  • Added.
  • Both the links for Ref 15 {Leroi) lead to the same Wikipedia article.
  • Not sure what you mean by "both", but the book-printed-on-paper's article is indeed linked from the citation, for readers who wish to learn more on that subject.
  • Added.
  • The links to Aristotle (Refs 23/24 etc.) no longer work.
  • Both are already archived correctly, at least they worked just now.
  • The link at Ref 26 (Yonge) does not lead to the text, only to a general website.
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 27 (Fry) has a dead link.
  • Updated.
  • Fixed.
  • The link for Ref 33 (Walton) comes up with a 403 error and cannot be accessed.
  • Fixed. There seem to be literally dozens of PDFs of the book on Commons, weird.
  • The link for Ref 35 (Ducheyne) is incorrect.
  • Fixed.
  • The links for Refs 37 & 52 (Levine, Evers) no longer work.
  • Fixed, and merged.
  • The link for Ref 39 (Fry) no longer works.
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 46 (BSI) has an incorrect link.
  • Fixed.
  • Only one of the German sources has the language stated.
  • Added.
  • Fixed and added.
  • Added.

More comments to follow, but it would be useful if you could deal with any of the issues above that prevent me from being able to verify the text in the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both non-GA and necessary? An interesting combination. I'll do what I can. The optional links seem to be by far the most fragile part of the text, so one can easily see why many articles dispense with them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]
  • Link hypothesized; doctrine; organism.
  • Done; I considered saying "no" for all three of these common terms.
  • It’s not clear to me why the citation is required.
  • Nor to me. Duff ref sloughed.
  • Introduce Aristotle; Francesco Redi; Lazzaro Spallanzani.
  • Glossed.
  • In the caption, why are Generation, Seashells, Sand and Hollows capitalized?
  • l/c.
  • The text in the caption is not mentioned in the rest of the article, and needs to be cited, as image captions here form part of the article text.
  • Done.

1 Description

[edit]
  • Link hypothesis; doctrine.
  • Done.
  • Spontaneous generation means – as a term is being defined here, I would put Spontaneous generation in italics.
  • Done.

2.1 Pre-Socratic philosophers

[edit]
  • Link and introduce Censorinus (presumably Censorinus).
  • Done.
  • Introduce Anaximander; Xenophanes; Empedocles.
  • Done.
  • Substratum – consider replacing this word, which has a variety of meanings; to my knowledge, this one is not explained in a Wikipedia article.
  • Done.
  • wet and dry, hot and cold – I would put these opposites in italics.
  • Done.
  • I would amend reports to ‘reported’, as the author is not now alive.
  • Done.
  • , too, believed - ‘also believed’ (to remove the commas).
  • No, that changes the sense.
  • Consider amending the earth to ‘the Earth’ for the sake of clarity, and amending sun to ‘Sun’ for the sake of consistency.
  • Done.
  • I would add a comma after accepted the spontaneous generation of life.
  • Done.

2.2 Aristotle

[edit]
  • [[Template:Main]] is “used after the heading of the summary, to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized". As the text is not a summary of Aristotle's biology, this template seems to be the wrong one.
  • Made it a "further" link.
  • Done; again we're close to going too far here.
  • Consider putting material cause and efficient cause in italics, as they are being defined.
  • Done.
  • the thing's - ‘a thing's’, as no specific thing has been mentioned?
  • The object under generation. "A" doesn't work here.
  • Yet, as proposed – sounds editorial. It needs copy editing to make it clear that it is Aristotle's ideas that are being discussed.
  • Reworded.
  • The illustration, which is your own work, may be WP:IMAGEOR, as it produced using your understanding of several pages of Leroi's Lagoon. If it is a recreation of an acceptable academic illustration, I will need to know where it came from. Also it is an example of MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, which is generally avoided. The image has other issues, for instance the colours look as if they stand for something, but this are not explained.
  • Ok, if you don't like the colours and what have you, then let's do without, I've removed it. However the assertion that it violates WP:IMAGEOR is incorrect. The policy states that "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the 'No original research' policy." The image illustrated Leroi's published ideas and arguments, as the policy requires.
  • τὸ ἀφρῶδες is not transliterated in the way that πνεῦμα is.
  • Added.
  • pneuma needs to be in italics throughout.
  • Done.

2.3 Latin and early Christian sources

[edit]
  • Introduce Pliny the Elder; Athenaeus; Augustine of Hippo.
  • Done.
  • Aristotle claimed that eels were lacking in sex and lacking milt, spawn and the passages for either. Rather, he asserted eels emerged from earthworms. Later authors dissented. - consider amending to something like 'Authors writing later than Aristotle disagreed with his claim that eels emerged from earthworms, and were lacking in sex and lacking milt, spawn and the passages for either’, as the later authors are the subject of this subsection, not Aristotle.
  • Done.
  • Done.

More comments to follow shortly. AM

3 Middle Ages

[edit]
  • Link Greek science; crustacean; impious (Impiety); atheism.
  • Done.
  • Looking at both sets of multiple images, doesn’t the text in the headers belong in the footer sections?
  • Done.
  • Mice, fleas, worms, fish, humans, snails and eels have all been mentioned so far, without being illustrated, but barnacles and geese get three images? Imo only the first of these is needed.
  • The goose barnacle = barnacle goose equation is certainly counter-intuitive to modern ears, and quite different in kind from the general 'dirty beasts emerge from dirt/slime/mud' picture, which is by the way also illustrated (at the request of a reader, I recall).
  • I don’t se why barnacle goose and goose barnacle need to be in italics.
  • Nor do I. Edited.
  • outside of the Book of Genesis – I'm unclear why this book is mentioned here.
  • Removed.
  • Aristotle, in Latin translation, from the original Greek or from Arabic, was reintroduced to Western Europe. During the 13th century, Aristotle reached his greatest acceptance. - Consider amending to improve the prose, e.g. by saying ‘After Aristotle’s works were reintroduced to Western Europe, they were translated into Latin from the original Greek or Arabic. They reached their greatest level of acceptance during the 13th century.’
  • Done.
  • Saint Albertus Magnus and his student, Saint Thomas Aquinas – as these individuals were canonised only after their deaths, naming them as saints is anachronistic, so amend to something like ‘the German philosopher Albertus Magnus and his student Thomas Aquinas’.
  • Done.
  • Avoid capitals for names in the quotation (MOS:CAPS).
  • Done.
  • he removed some and incorporated other commentaries by Arabic scholars - ‘he removed some commentaries by Arabic scholars. and incorporated others’ makes more sense imo.
  • Done.
  • numerous other influences - I would omit the vague numerous.
  • Done.
  • Spontaneous generation is described as if it were a fact in literature well into the Renaissance – needs copy editing to improve the prose.
  • Reordered.
  • In passing, Shakespeare discusses is not encyclopaedic – ‘Shakespeare wrote of’ sounds better imo.
  • Done.
  • Introduce Izaak Walton.
  • Done.
  • Engendered – can you change this? It looks inelegant in a sentence about the causes of animal birth…
  • Done.
  • Jan Swammerdam (1637–1680) – I would edit out the dates that start to appear from here.
  • Done.
  • like others – it needs to be clearer who is being referred to here.
  • Removed.
  • atheism and Godless opinion – are these not the same thing (if so, omit one)?
  • Done.

More comments to follow. AM

4.1 Early tests

[edit]
  • Introduce Jan Baptist van Helmont; William Harvey; Francesco Redi; John Ray, and any other people not already introduced.
  • Done.
  • Link willow; basil; embryo; coagulation; uterus; frontispiece (Book frontispiece); spores; broth; evacuated (Vacuum).
  • Linked.
  • ...used experimental techniques… the absorption of water. This text seems to be off topic. Why not go straight into his animal experiments?
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • done these things – I would amend to ‘attempted to do these things’, for the sake of clarity.
  • Done.
  • Link abiogenesis in the caption.
  • Reworded, see below.
  • I would give a publication date for Essays on the Generation of Animals.
  • Added.
  • The image doesn’t show Redi’s experiment adequately, e.g. the cloth-covered jars are not shown. I have produced what I consider to be an improved version at [[File:Illustration of Redi's 1668 experiment to refute spontaneous generation.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|Illustration of Redi's 1668 experiment to refute spontaneous generation]], feel free to replace the current image with this one, which I can easily amend.
  • Done.
  • by the Church – readers might find it helpful if you added which one (I am assuming it’s the Catholic Church).
  • Done.
  • I would add a comma after slices of melon.
  • Done.
  • Dr. Darwin calls it, spontaneous generation – the full stop follows generation, not the quote marks.
  • Done.
  • Move the link to microscope where it first occurs.
  • Done.
  • I would link brewing, not beer.
  • Done.
  • Leeuwenhoek needs to be introduced with his full name.
  • Done.
  • to support it – say what it is referring to.

Final comments to follow. What a great article. AM

Ah, thank you! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4.2 Pasteur and Tyndall

[edit]
  • Unlink abiogenesis (it is a duplicate link).
  • Done.
  • The image is imo not the best one out there. As this is essentially a history of science article, something like this would I think serve a better purpose and be more interesting. Thoughts?
  • That image is very good for giving a period feel and showing what exactly the glassware was like, but the existing diagram, not one of mine, shows very concisely the experimental procedure and results, which is what we needed here.
  • Linked culture; by inorganic is meant 'non-living' so said that.
  • did not exist at the time of Tyndall's experiments, let alone those of Pasteur – ‘was introduced after the work done by Pasteur and Tyndall’?
  • Done.
  • "biogenesis" – should be unquoted and in italics, as it an introduced term. Ditto spontaneous' generation where it is referred to as a term.
  • Done.
  • Introduce Rudolf Virchow et al.
  • Done.
  • Are all the citations that follow the work of Robert Remak needed?
  • Trimmed.

On hold

[edit]

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 13 January to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're complete here now. Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your responses (all noted and understood), the article is now ready to pass. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spontaneous_generation/GA1&oldid=1131783390"