Talk:Peppered moth evolution

Peppered moth evolution 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: August 16, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Evolutionary biology High‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lepidoptera Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

1

Jerry Coyne

An editor has removed the quotation from the evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne on Majerus's experiments, on the grounds of the essay WP:USESPS. However, essays are never more than advisory, and where they conflict with policy, they are wrong. The actual policy is WP:RSSELF, which the essay has over-enthusiastically tried to explicate. The policy states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Coyne is a major player in evolutionary biology. He has published many widely-cited peer-reviewed papers, so he meets the "established expert" and "work in the relevant field" criteria. The reason for the dislike of blogs is that anyone can write one; but when a scientist is notable and relevant, per WP:RSSELF, then the concern doesn't arise. We should therefore restore the brief cited quotation from Coyne on the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Text restored. WP:USESPS even says, "Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source or among the best sources." The statement is particularly relevant to the whole story. Chhandama (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative hypothesis

The selective factor proposed på P. A. Riley is not alternative to natural selection, but alternative only to the predation factor. Should be moved up. 185.91.152.17 (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True but there's nowhere "up" to move it to. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]