Wikipedia:Peer review/Speciation/archive1

Speciation

I've taken this very important article concerning evolution (which was a real mess) pretty far in the past couple of days, but I'm not sure where to go from here. Any ideas will be appreciated. BenB4 01:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, unfortunately "this is the only illustration I could find, and I can't draw" isn't a legitimate fair use rationale. Try the {{reqimage}} or {{reqdiagram}} templates instead.
Why isn't that a legitimate fair use rationale? BenB4 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that has been explained on the talk page. pschemp | talk 23:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. BenB4 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit-conflicted explanation) For essentially the same reason that, as described in the fair use policy, it's not legitimate to use a copyrighted photo of a person to illustrate an article about the person rather than one about the specific photograph in question. It's also considered important to use or create a free image where possible rather than using a fair-use one. ~~The image and diagram request templates can attract good diagram-creators who can help - I'd try it myself, but my previous image efforts have been... rather bad :)~~ looks like you've attracted a few. Opabinia regalis 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
asked on WP:FU talk BenB4 00:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's buried somewhere in the MoS that headers shouldn't repeat the title, but the sections would read much better as "natural speciation" and "artificial speciation".
Done. BenB4 23:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A more extensive discussion of the Galapagos would be useful, as it's the best-known example of the phenomenon.
The "observed examples" link to talk.origins is well-researched and useful as an external link, but surely there's a more academic compilation somewhere?
I don't think so. I've looked. If there is, I can't find one. The talk.origins faq is pretty well sourced, with plenty of peer-reviewed science citations. BenB4 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion of phylogenetics and the measurement of species coalescence times might be a good expansion.

Opabinia regalis 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your helpful comments; I am adding the remaining ones to a todo list. BenB4 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]