Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AP Biology 2010

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject AP Biology 2010 and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

Archives

Archive 1 (January 2011)

This article was intensively edited as a Fall 2010 / Spring 2011 educational assignment: WikiProject AP Biology 2010.

We invite you to join us to make further improvements and changes. We are not claiming any sort of ownership. This is a project in collaboration.

Click here to leave a new message. Also, please remember to always sign your messages with '~~~~'

Phase II: Evolution Theme (copied from project page)

This is a second semester follow-up to the 2010-2011 Project. As always, I am seeking ways to improve the experience by implementing new strategies. In this case, the student's goal is to improve evolution related articles by making a series of minor contributions. In the process they will become more acquainted with the subject of evolution as they review the literature and web resources.

The emphasis on less dramatic edits on numerous articles from the former two article approach is a shift from past strategies. If this is successful, there may be merit in switching the order on the 2011-2012 Project. We could begin with accumulated small edits on a shared theme during semester I and then push for success on a single article within that theme in semester II - just thinking ahead.

The bulleted list below outlines the method of accumulating points. It too is a marked change in protocol. The new strategy should reduce procrastination and minimize the impact of a single grade on the student's overall average. There is flexibility on point assessment. Ultimately, points awarded is based on my judgment. If I deem the content insignificant, the prose changes inappropriate, the references not to standard or the images unworthy of the article then points may be denied. Monday morning, at the start of class, will mark the beginning of a new grading cycle - the expectations are a maximum of 10 pts. per week. Points do not carry over. I am open for expanding the table to include additional avenues of contribution.

Improving Prose 3 pts. / section

Grammar and Spelling Corrections 2 pts. / sentence or word corrections

Adding Images 5 pts. from Wikicommons / 10 pt. if original upload

Formatting Up to 5 pts. dependent upon degree of reorganization

Referencing 3 pts. / references (most conform to format)

Content Improvement Negotiable

Create an Audio File Negotiable

Consensus Building up to 5 pts. / issue

Be certain to add any topic that you edit for points to the list below along with potential topics that others may find of interest.

Topic List

I suggest creating a topics list as you stumble upon evolution related articles. I will add the first one! You are required to add any that you edited for points.--JimmyButler (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allopatric speciation
Population bottleneck
Comparative Anatomy
Coevolution
Evolutionary arms race
Speciation
Introduction to Evolution
Genetic recombination
Genetic diversity
Inheritance of acquired characteristics
Gene flow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekah best (talk • contribs) 19:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To monitor what happens in these articles, click here.

Topic suggestions

Natural Selection is a central topic in evolution. The article was reassessed for GA recently, see the talk page. The only complaint was lack of references to support some of the statements. Mending this would be very valuable and would probably be a good way to learn about evolution. It would probably not be an efficient way to gather points though. Could this also be negotiable? --Ettrig (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction to evolution is in very good shape. If this article is put up for GA review it will either be promoted or generate suggestions for improvement. --Ettrig (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the content in Plant evolutionary developmental biology would fit well in Evolutionary history of plants. Both are large and extensively (and beautifully) illustrated. The merging operation would also be rather extensive. Lots of points I hope. Maybe some could also be copied (adapted) to Evolutionary developmental biology, which is in a rather poor state, at least a couple of illustrations. A lot of nice reading here. --Ettrig (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Species evolution

There are a huge amount of species topics, and particularly turtle species, that are undeveloped articles. Pretty much every one of them to be fully developed needs an "evolution" section. Just throwing that out as an idea. Sometimes looking at a granular example in action drives a concept home, more than the general theory. Also, pretty easy point gathering territory. Hint, hint. TCO (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

couple similar ones

Hybrid (biology)

Intergradation

TCO (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

I have taken the liberty to copy a series of exchanges (below) as an example of peer review. Credibility of scientific claims are established through publications. This in turn allows for scrutiny by others in a process known as peer review. Wikipedia, as in all publications, bases its credibility on an audience that is willing to monitor the accuracy of the claims made within it. This exchange over a single sentence is typical; especially when an article attempts recognitions, such as FA. If you notice - I have added such intellectual exchanges as a point gathering opportunity.--JimmyButler (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for being the first in the pack to make a contribution in the next phase, to population bottleneck. If you look in the reference list, you can find two copies of your reference. I suggest you remove the copy that is written among the references. The one that is together with the text it supports is sufficient. You might also read paragraph Theoretical mechanisms in punctuated equilibrium. That text describes how small founding groups, a kind of bottle necks, may be necessary to produce radically different life forms. Does this contradict the statements that you entered? If it does, how can this be resolved? --Ettrig (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting! I appreciate your input. I don't believe that the article does contradict my new statements. I was careful to use the word "may" so that it would not come across as a definite outcome. I think it is true that speciation can occur in small, isolated population. However, I also think that, more often than not, the isolated population will just die out. This is because it does not always get the diversity it needs for natural selection. (I mentioned this in my statements.) Natural selection would also be more likely to occur in a small population. A large population was one of the requirements for Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, so natural selection would definitely take place at a slower rate. However, any trait that is even slightly beneficial would grow in percentage given sufficient time. I will see to the referencing problem.--Rebekah best (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead contains the following sentence: These new selective pressures may have acted on genetic variation that has already drifted out of the population. I think it says that at a certain past time selection may have acted on gene alleles that weren't there, because they had drifted to extinction. But selection cannot work on non-existing alleles. I think the intention was to say that some alleles that have been in the population but are no longer here because of drift would have been positively selected on by the present environment if it wasn't for the fact that they are gone. --Ettrig (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! That is what I meant when I said that; sorry if my wording was a bit confusing. I will change the sentence now. I'll probably use your words, so I hope that is okay.--Rebekah best (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exciting

Should anyone care to grab the bull by the horns. I've made a request for the addition of a "Genetic Drift" section to be added to Introduction to Evolution. Perhaps we can commission a rework of the horse illustration. If that happens then an aggressive three step process (Peer Review - GA - FA) should prove to be most exciting. Certainly more worthy than spell checking fringe articles on Evolution! --JimmyButler (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some content about it. I'm curious to see what comes, and I definitely like the content and citations more than spell checking! I would love to get it the article back to GA or FA like you suggest above. --M rickabaugh (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leading a hand

There are a few other articles that I have stumbled upon that relate to evolution, some are more of a stretch then others. They all need some love and care.

Maybe one of these will spark someones interest --Guerillero | My Talk 01:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]