Talk:The Making of the Fittest

Peer Review

Sarath Pavuluri
A lead section that is easy to understand
1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
The article is not split into clearly labeled sections, but it is apparent that the lead is the first paragraph. While it initially gives a good overview of making of the fittest, there is no clear statement to explain the importance of the topic.

• What would you suggest I do to make the statements more clear. Also, how would you suggest splitting up the sections to make it more clear?

2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
The lead could use more information rather than a description of the studies that are later referenced. For example, I think some descriptions that explain how some organisms evolve, or the importance in terms of human evolution would be beneficial to the article.

• Thank you. That was a good example of what I should do. I will definitely incorporate that into my article.

3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others?
The lead does not seem to give more weight to certain parts of the article.

• Thank you.

4. Is anything missing?
Some introductory information on evolution such as natural selection, or what types of changes evolving populations undergo could be added.

• Thank you. I will try to add all of that into my article.

5. Is anything redundant?
I feel that listing the studies that are later described in the article in not necessary.

• Do you think I should stop listing the studies ?

A clear structure
6. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order?
In terms of the order the information is presented, the organization is sensible. However, there are no clearly labeled sections, which makes the article seem a bit unorganized.

• I see what you mean. Thank you for that. I will add labels to the sections.

7. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
The article makes sense in the order it is presented, if the sections were clearly labeled.

• Thanks.

Balanced coverage
8. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject?
I think for the most part, each sections length is equal to importance. However, the lead could have a bit more information.

• Do you think it would be better if I added more of the material from the body paragraphs into the lead? Thank you for suggesting that.

9. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary?
I think the paragraph comparing and contrasting mice and humans could be incorporated into the previous sections.

• Should I get rid of the paragraph altogether?

10. Is anything off-topic?
None of the information in the article is off-topic

• Thank you !

11. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature?
The article seems to reflect the perspectives of the literature it was drawn from.

• Thank you.

12. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
I think the ways in which mice have an advantage over humans in certain scenarios could be added. It seems unlikely that humans adapt better to every conceivable environment.

• That is a great suggestion. I will try to incorporate that into my article. Thank you so much.

13. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
The article unnecessarily draws the conclusion that Homo sapiens are more evolved. I think this would be best left out.

• I will review the article again and make the necessary changes to the conclusion. Thank you for that suggestion.

Neutral content
14. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
The article doesn't have one obvious perspective for the most part, with the exception of Homo sapiens having only advantages over mice. Some information on how each of these species thrive in certain scenarios would help.

• I agree. I will add more information that will entail how each of the species thrives in certain scenarios. Thanks.

15. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
I think that the way "probably" is used in the last paragraph does not really make it seem like a neutral, academic viewpoint. The article would seem more neutral in my opinion with alternative word choice.

• I understand. I will reword my last paragraph to be more neutral. Thank you

16. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
This article does a good job of using specific institutions or individuals to support the information.

• Thank you so much.

17. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
I think this article focuses too much on the advantages humans have in comparison to mice.

• What do you think I should shift my focus to so that the article wont be solely focused on the advantages humans have in comparison to mice?

Reliable sources
18. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
The sources that are used in this article appear to be reliable primary literature.

• Thank you.

19. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
I don't believe so. Each paragraph uses a single source, but the middle two paragraphs are not unbalanced because of this, as they just provide descriptions of the studies. The last paragraph sources a factual statement regarding a natural phenomenon found in a study.

• Thanks. I also plan to add more references to the article as I begin revisions.

20. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!
The lead in this article needs sourced statements. The middle two paragraphs have multiple unsourced statements, but this can easily be fixed by citing the study in question for each statement rather than for just one part of the paragraph. The last paragraph lacks sourced statements, with the exception of the last sentence.
Scpavuluri (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)(7:02 PM November 9th North American Central Time)

• Thank you. I appreciate all of your suggestions and I will take them all into consideration.

Peer Review

Lindsay Pittman 1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes, I think you make it seem important but it doesn't really seem like something that the average person would care about. To make it sound more interesting and easier to understand, I would maybe add an example. I would also mention how this concept helps scientists better understand evolution and ecological topics.

• Thanks Lindsay ! I understand what you mean. I will add some examples.

2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? You do not offer a lot of information in the article, so maybe try and add more background information and sections and then add information to the lead in. Also, I like that you mention the studies in the lead-in but you do not relate them to making of the fittest, so I think you should mention their hypotheses and relate them to your topic.

• Thank you. I will add more background information to the article to make the article more understandable.

3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Your article mostly discusses the studies that you researched, so I would try and broaden your article by include more headings to give more background information. You could add sections about what fitness is/fitness importance, why making of the fittest leads to more advanced species, etc.

• Thanks. I will add more headings for sure. Sections is a good idea. I will do that.

4. Is anything missing? Just needs more content!

• Okay, thank you ! I will add more content

5. Is anything redundant? I don't you have any issues with redundancy. I think, though, that you should just list the hypothesis of your studies in the lead in and then go into more detail about them in a separate section instead of giving so much detail in the lead in.

• I see. I will go into detail about the hypothesis in separate sections and also add it to the lead.

A clear structure 6. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? What you have is good, I think you should add more to your lead in and then add more section after it, before the studies.

• Okay. Thank you. I will add more information to my lead so that the overview of the article is well interpreted. I will also add more materials to the sections.

7. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? What you have is good, I like that you added a summary after your studies to synthesize the information!

• Thank you !

Balanced coverage 8. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? I definitely think you could add more information and write about how scientists use this theory and how it helps us better understand evolution and species development.

• I like this suggestion a lot. Thank you. I will add more info and write about how the researches/ scientists used this theory. I will go more in depth.

9. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? No, add more! I would also put your studies as a section near the end of your article.

• Thank you. I will do so.

10. Is anything off-topic? I think you stayed on topic but did not elaborate enough on the topic. Thanks ! I tried my best to stay on topic. I do understand that I need to elaborate more though. 11. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? There is not much literature listed so definitely add your sources when you get more information!

• I will surely go back and add my other references. Thank you for that observation

12. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? I think this article is neutral and does not need any viewpoints added.

• Thanks.

13. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No.

• Thanks

Neutral content 14. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No, I don't see any perspective. Jahnice does a good job of stating factual information.

• Thank you. I put forth a lot of effort to make the article neutral and not use one particular point of view

15. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." During the lead in, Jahnice uses "I" words and it makes the article seem more casual and more like her opinions. Just changing the wording would fix this!

• I completely see how that was wrong. I forgot that there shouldn't be words like I or me in a scientific article. I will make these changes ASAP

16. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? No, it does not.

• Thanks.

17. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

• Thanks

Reliable sources 18. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Your lead in could use some definitions of making of the fitness with sources but you citied your facts for the studies, which is good. You do not have much cite-able material so I would definitely like to see more.

• That is a good suggestion. I agree. Some definitions would definitely help make my article better. Thank you. I will also add more citations and cite-able material

19. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No.

• Thanks.

Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsaypittman (talk • contribs) 03:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Lindsay. I appreciate all of your suggestions and will take them all into consideration to make the proper changes.

Sorry, this won't work

Okay, I'm going to get clobbered for this (and I'm proactively pinging Laurakreed for her comments), but I honestly don't know what to do with this except recommend WP:TNT.

I assume that what this is meant to be is an article about the book "The making of the fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution" by Sean B. Carroll, although the article manages to not mention that title or the author even once. What it is is an unconnected recounting of two isolated case studies that I assume, again, are discussed somewhere in that book; followed by a paragraph of commonplaces about evolutionary fitness that is overall trite and in many instances plain wrong.

The book appears to be notable, and there are several in-depth reviews online. We should at least have a stub on the topic. But to my mind the current content is wholly unsuitable and should not be live on Wikipedia. I aim to remove all of it in a short while and replace with a bare-bones review stub for the time being.

I really wish articles emerging from this WikiEd project had undergone some more vetting by someone who knows what a Wikipedia article is actually meant to look like, before they entered mainspace; that would have avoided all this "public" damage control. The peer reviews by other students are all well-intentioned but can't provide that basic reality check. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC) (also ping: Jswashington2)

Agree - I was at a loss what to do with this - extreme case of WP:SYNTH at the very least.PRehse (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Expansion welcome (which I suppose might include specific case studies from the book). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)