Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/On the Origin of Species/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:01, 20 June 2009 [1].

On the Origin of Species

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because... A group of editors have been working on this article for several months in hopes of getting it promoted to FA in time to be featured on the main page for the 150th anniversary of Origin's first publication on November 24th. We now believe it is ready for FAC. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there is a misuse of the {{main}} template (I raise this because I'm seeing it on a number of FACs). The main template is used when this article is a summary of the linked article. If the linked article isn't fully summarized here, then the seealso or further templates should be used instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to agree with this, as the sections here include information which isn't necessarily in the "main" articles and are more focussed on the book than they are. If Rusty has no objections, will change to {{seealso}} throughout. . . dave souza, talk 14:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree also and it is done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as a significant contributor to the article before its nomination. In my view this gives concise, comprehensive and fully researched coverage of this significant publication, including the background development and publication of the book, the "one long argument" it puts forward, and its impact on science and society. Care has been taken to meet the style guidelines and incorporate suitable images. . dave souza, talk 14:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Darwin's book introduced the theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection". I'm troubled by the absence of the critical distinction between natural and sexual selection—a distinction Darwin himself made by sequestering his discussion of the latter into a 16-page chapter in this book. Some people believe sexual selection is but a subset of natural selection, but this is belied in the opening definition of natural selection, linked to in the first paragraph of this nomination:

Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce become more common over successive generations of a population. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

By contrast, sexual selection does not concern surviving "long enough to reproduce", but gaining access to the reproductive resources of the opposite sex, largely through the successful display of fitness indicators. In the celebrated example of the male peacock, these imperatives are at odds with each other. The subsection on Sexual selection in Natural selection starts thus:

It is useful to distinguish between "ecological selection" and the narrower term "sexual selection". Ecological selection covers any mechanism of selection as a result of the environment (including relatives, e.g. kin selection, competition, and infanticide), while "sexual selection" refers specifically to competition for mates.

I think the assertion that sexual selection is "narrower" than ecological selection is hard to defend, actually. The confusion continues:

Although a complete theory of evolution also requires an account of how genetic variation arises in the first place (such as by mutation and sexual reproduction) and includes other evolutionary mechanisms (such as gene flow), natural selection is still understood as a fundamental mechanism for evolution.

In the nomination, sexual selection gets a passing mention in a solitary sentence fragment—buried in the middle of the article—that appears to be out of step with its significance and, through omission, inaccurate.

Please comment. Tony (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the first edition, which is the main focus of this article, Sexual Selection is a section of Chapter IV: Natural Selection, and is covered on pages 87–90. The article covers it in a full sentence in the section on that chapter. In the sixth edition, it appears in the same Chapter IV: Natural Selection, on pages 69–70. The reduced number of pages probably reflects the small print of that edition rather than any drastic change. I think the coverage here is proportionate, and the more extended coverage you suggest belongs in the article on The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex where Darwin developed his ideas on the subject. Perhaps a mention of him having extended his ideas on the subject in that other book would be useful. . . dave souza, talk 17:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I appreciate your comments on the deficiencies of a linked article, and have boldly altered the opening definition of natural selection to read "Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common over successive generations of a population." as well as noting the importance of sexual selection in the lead to that article, and deleting "the narrower term" from the section on sexual selection. Doubtless that article needs further improvement by someone with more expertise on modern biology rather than the historical development which is my interest. . . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dave. Tony (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per a suggestion Dave made on my talk page, I have added another sentence to make it clear that Darwin's primary treatment of sexual selection was in his later work Descent of Man (1871). Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at some other articles on older books and they all use N/A for the ISBN field in the info box rather than use the ID of a modern edition, so I went with that. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments:
    • "...and during the eclipse of Darwinism various other mechanisms of evolution were given more credit." The term "eclipse of Darwinism" seems forced in this sentence and is unnecessary jargon for the lead. May be better to to just explicitly state the period.
I explicitly stated the period, but I left the phrase "eclipse of Darwinsim" in because the wiki-link to that article is very useful at that point. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the rephrasiong and addition of quotes makes the "eclipse of Darwin" reference clear enough. Abecedare (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't figure out how and where exactly the reference Forster Marston, pp. 26–27 supports the statement, "Early Christian Church Fathers ... creation according to Genesis,". Can you clarify ?
Sorry that an error made the link unclear, now corrected to show it was Forster & Marston 1999, pp. 26–27. On page 27 the summarise their assessment as "We have now surveyed something of the first thirteen centuries of the church after the death of Christ. We have shown that, whilst exegetes differed in their degree of allegory, simple literalism was not orthodoxy and large groups of Bible-believing Christians thought eg the ‘days’ were not literal." The same issue is covered by Bowler 2003, p. 27, which states that there has never been an unbroken period of consensus on a literal view of creation: medieval scholars were aware of divergent opinions among the early church fathers, and the modern model of creation accepted by fundamentalists was first articulated in the 17th century. . dave souza, talk 13:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence "Geoffroy thought the environment acted on embryos in the transformations of past eras, as recapitulated by embryonic development, and homologies showed unity of plan reflecting higher laws." is very difficult to interpret and parse. Can it be rephrased ?
Rephrased, trying to make it more explanatory in accordance with Desmond (the source) . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... a kind of wedging, forcing the well adapted into gaps in the economy of nature as weaker structures were thrust out ..." I realize that this is a close copy of Darwin's own words, but it sounds stilted/dated now (especially the "economy of nature"). May be better to either rephrase it, or to introduce quotation marks to indicate that some of the language is Darwin's.
Both Browne 1995 p. 388 and van Wyhe 2009 quote it verbatim, as suggested I've rephrased the sentence to clarify this and have added quotation marks to Darwin's phrases. . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor follow-up: regarding "unfavourable variations would be destroyed." Is there a better term than "destroyed" (which perhaps suggests active intervention) ? Discarded ? Reach a dead end ? ...Abecedare (talk)
As van Wyhe notes, Darwin "realised that an enormous proportion of living things are always destroyed before they can reproduce", and in his autobiography wrote that "favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed". We could always soften it to "unfavourable variations would fail to reproduce." However, "destroyed" reflects the bleak Malthusian vision – I don't have strong views on this, and will accept change if it's thought appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll comment on the talk page if/when I think of a more apt verb. It's not a significant FAC issue. Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • " ... a kind of wedging ... thrust out resulting in the formation of new species." The last part, which I have bolded, is not an obvious consequence/interpretation of Darwin's language in the note. To avoid possible OR, either add a secondary source or remove the last bit.
Both Browne and van Wyhe could be used as sources – I've used van Wyhe, and have rephrased it to leave the focus on natural selection, omitting the ending (which had been based on "The result of this would be the formation of new species" which van Wyhe cites from Darwin's autobiography). . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a pass through and tried to reduce the over linking.Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved, but still some stray overlinking e.g. Asa Gray. Abecedare (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a judgement call, my feeling is that a sensible approach is set by WP:LINK#Link density: "If a later occurrence of a link is separated by a long way from the first. Avoiding duplicate links in the same section of an article is generally a safe rule of thumb." Asa Gray is linked in different well separated contexts, once in each of in four sections (or subsections), and removing these links would in my opinion be a disservice to readers who use the contents list to go straight to their section of interest, or forget where they saw the name before. Will try looking for other cases. . dave souza, talk 14:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share your views on when linking more than once is appropriate and serves the reader well. Just advice vigilance on the issue (even after the FAC is closed!) Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • At certain places the text would flow better by prudent addition of adverbs and conjunctions like however, moreover and since. Readers of this article are introduced to a multitude of technical terms and ideas, and it is useful to guide them as to whether the discussed concepts are supplementary, or oppositional. For example: "Darwin now had the framework of his theory of natural selection 'by which to work'. He was fully occupied with his career as a geologist, and held off writing a sketch of his theory until his book". The second sentence could use a but or a however.
That example's been changed as you suggest, and have gone over text to improve flow of ideas in the same way. . dave souza, talk 07:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments later. Abecedare (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continued ...
    • Consider adding some discussion of the Butler quote in the Title pages and introduction section. Are there secondary sources discussing what motivated him to add this quote in later editions ?
Have tried adding a description based on Phipps plus a ref to the 2nd. edition when it was added. Will try looking for a source giving Darwin's motivation. . dave souza, talk 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Found an indication in Browne, who also gives a different and clearer interpretation, so revised accordingly. . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence "A topic he treated more fully in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871)." is left hanging (I can't recall the grammatical term for this).
      I've re-worded to "He analysed sexual selection more fully in ..." --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the groupings of chapters in the Content section make sense, but I am not sure why Instinct and Hybridism appear under "Difficulty for the theory"
      The way I understand it the chapter 6 "DIFFICULTIES ON THEORY" surveys the difficulties, which include the absence of transitional forms and the apparent perfection of extant organisms. Ch 6 then goes on to deal with how "half-evolved" physical features can provide advantages over unmodified contemporary organisms, and Ch 7 applies a similar analysis to instincts, using slave ants and bees as examples. Ch 8 "HYBRIDISM" undermines the traditional notion of a huge barrier between species in two ways: hybrids are not always sterile; and there is no rigorous disctinction betweeen varieties and species. In his usual style D. writes a mini-article on the subject per se, and then towards the end relates to the surrounding themes. The fundamental issues for a WP article are that it's a big, complex book and D. did not use the "signposting" techniques that are common in moder textbooks --Philcha (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Near the start of chapter VI Darwin lists 4 categories (headings) of possible objecetions to his theory and says that he will discuss the first two categories in this chapter and those related to "Instinct and Hybridism in separate chapters". That seems to make the grouping logical. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      You are right about Darwin's note in Ch. 6, and that is a perfect justification for keeping the discussion of those chapters together. However, I suspect that many other readers will have the question/doubt that I had, so it will be a good idea to address it pre-emptively. Perhaps, the subsection can begin as, "In the next few chapters Darwin anticipated and addressed possible objections to the theory inclusing its ability to explain ..." (rephrase as you will, especially since we don't want that subsection to become unduly large). Abecedare (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, I think I have made an edit that addresses this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we need the word Divergence in the "Struggle for existence, natural selection, and divergence" ? It is not a chapter-level topic in OtOoS.
      IMO this is a judgement call, and its a close one. The evidence in favour is seen if you text-search the online version for "the more diversified the descendants from any one species become in structure, constitution, and habits, by so much will they be better enabled to seize on many and widely diversified places in the polity of nature": "Divergence" is a second-level heading within Ch4 "Natural selection"; and Darwin emphasises the topic's importance very explicitly. --Philcha (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree it is a judgement call, but I think it is a good one. Darwin says right near the start of chapter III that the question he is trying to answer is how varieties of a species diverge into distinct species, and how those species then diverge into distinct genera, and offers natural selection as the answer. Secondary sources, ie (Quammen 2006 p. 188) and (Larson 2004 p. 87), emphasise the imporatance of this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      While I would have chosen to remove divergence (to remove any subjectivity), I agree that this is an editorial decision with no real wrong answer. Abecedare (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider adding a precis of the "Misc. Objections" chapter in the Content section; perhaps under a new sub-section covering all the later changes. Currently we only say that Darwin added "a new chapter VII, Miscellaneous objections, to address Mivart's arguments."
      Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of "Chapter VIII (of the first edition)" we need "Chapter VII (of the first edition)" since that is the first chapter who's number changed in the 6th edition.
      Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give some idea of the size of the book (word count or pages), possibly in the infobox.
      I could not find a word-count on the web, and suspect pasting the online text into an editor that gives a word count would be WP:OR. The editor's intro to the online edition] says, "This is true of the issues which are paginated xxxi + 703 pp., but there are also issues in both cloth and paper with a pagination of xxi + 432 pp; these are the cheap ones which tend not to be found in libraries." I suspect the "cheap editions" refers to the small-font 6th edition described at On_the_Origin_of_Species#Publication_and_subsequent_editions. So I'd go with 703 pp as a reasonable indicator. Is that OK? --Philcha (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link for "editor's intro" seems to have got mixed up with one to OtOOS itself, the quote comes from R. B. Freeman's bibliographical introduction, and 703 pages looks to be the figure to go with. . . dave souza, talk 19:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is perfectly fine. I just wanted the reader to have some idea of the size; whther it is closer to a pamphlet or a doorstop. Abecedare (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check for voice changes as in this sentence: "It has been argued that this anticipated the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis, but other scholars have emphasized Darwin's commitment to gradualism."
      Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...fossils from recent geological periods resembled those still living in the same area, in South America as he had seen, and in Australia as William Clift had shown." Fix grammar.
    • "Darwin explained ... would still be related to species found on the continent, a common pattern." Fix grammar.
      Reworded. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "on many such islands the roles played by mammals on continents are played by other kinds of organisms such as flightless birds or reptiles." Rephrase as active voice ?
      Fixed.Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... but Lamarckism ... had been discredited." Is this true ? Darwin himself accepted the law of inherited acquired characteristics, while discarding parallel progressive evolutionary lineages.
      Yes that was an unfortunate choice of words. I have reworded it to make it clear that it was Lamarck's transmutational ideas not inheritence of acquired characteristics which were out of favor. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His scientific method was disputed" → "His scientific method was also disputed" ?
      Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a concordance, an extensive external index" → "a concordance, an exhaustive external index"  ? That is the typical meaning of a concordance, but I am not sure if it is true for the referenced work.
      Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No mention of genetics providing a mechanism for inheritance (in the concluding section) ?
      "merged Darwinian selection theory with a statistical understanding of Mendelian inheritance" is already there I don't understand what would be needed beyond that. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      True, but I am somewhat surprised that the terms gene (or genetics) and mutation do not appear explicitly anywhere in the article since they provided the conceptual and physical mechanism for the "variation in the population" and "inheritance of variation" (points 5 and 6 in Mayr's summary). A typical lay reader is unlikely to realize the import of Mendelian inheritance, but will surely recognize the word "gene". Just give it some thought. Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, I take your point. I have made an edit that makes it clear that the alternatives to natural selection that were poplular during the eclipse of Darwinism were rejected because of the development of a better understanding of inheritance and mutation. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond to the replies above, once I have completed one pass through the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think it's a relic and have removed it. . dave souza, talk 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was there a conscious decision to avoid commas in phrases like "In the 1790s Charles Darwin's grandfather...". I find that the flow improves with commas, and in any case the article is not entirely consistent in this matter. ("In November 1844, the anonymously published...") Outriggr (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if that was a personal preference or a UK tendency, have reviewed the first sections to use commas in these circumstances or rephrase sentences, in progress and think it's looking better. Hope that's the intended effect. . . dave souza, talk 22:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Now completed throughout article. . dave souza, talk 07:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 3 (Hardie..) is actually a translation of Aristotle's Physics... I'd expect to see Aristotle as the author, with translators afterwards. Suggest doing something like:
  • Aristotle Physics translated by Hardie, R. P. and Gayle, R. K. Hosted by MIT's Internet Classics Archive, Retireved on 2009-04-23" so that it's clear you're referencing Aristotle's thoughts here.
  • All of your refs from the Darwin-online.org site need to give a publisher for them. (which would be... Darwin.org)
Most of these are WP:CITE#Convenience links, and as such we name the original publisher and date, rather than adding in The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online (or a redirect from Darwin Online) as the hosting website – haven't seen a Template:Citation parameter for that. I'm satisfied that the hosting website is reliable. Where we cite original content from the site, they should be named as the publisher – there seem to be some discrepancies as you list below, and I'll recheck that's been done throughout. . dave souza, talk 09:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#pe-vs-pg . . dave souza, talk 22:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serious question here, what makes the replacement reliable? It's an FAQ from basically a usenet group. We don't allow most posts/etc from message boards, what makes this one special? Alternately, we can go through the SPS route, is the author (Welsey Elsberry) a noted authority on the subject? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wesley R. Elsberry is a biologist and well regarded writer, the site has become more than a usenet group, see TalkOrigins Archive#Awards for the recognition it's received: it's been used as a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 07:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the awards, and most of them aren't really awards, they are "recommended websites". I see it's used in a number of college courses, but the one textbook it's used it, it appears to be a "recommended website" type thing. I actually find the author more persuasive here. I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the inline citations, it's a supplementary reference for two statements: the first is also cited to Bowler, who covers all the points, and the second is fully supported by a journal article by Frank H. T. Rhodes. TalkOrigins Archive is a reputable source for the scientific view in the creation-evolution controversy, and while this is an argument within science, Elsberry is well qualified and the article is both informative and accessible to readers who don't have the book by Bowler or journal access. If the Elsberry reference were removed the text would remain well referenced, but the link seems to me to provide useful additional explanation for those interested. . dave souza, talk 15:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide4.html reliable source? (Note it's repeated twice, at current refs 139 and 142, can't you combine those?)
    I combined them. I don't see a problem with this being a reliable source. The website is hosted by a university. The authors are clearly identified and are faculty members of the university (one of them in the Biology department). They cite their sources (they have three separate chapters on bibliographic information). I think that should suffice. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify upon further research - One of the authors (who apparently died in 2002) was an adjuct professor of biology but he was actually a member of the English department who specialized in 19th century scientfic literature. My comments about the bibliographic information understated things. They have a masive online index (organized by year) to Huxley's private correspondance as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One final point. The name of the deceased professor was Charles Blinderman and a search of google scholar for "Blinderman Huxley" reveals that he was author of a number of articles on Huxley published in a variety of jouirnals. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 158 (Letter from Charles Kinglsey to Darwin..) needs a publisher
Citation now in format used in earlier references, following the title of the web page and thus giving the publisher's name. . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for current ref 162 (Gray, Asa..) (Suggest you format the link title like the Letter in ref 158 also)
On review, have formatted to use the journal and publisher template fields, so that after the name, year and title, it gives the names thus: "Atlantic Monthly (Darwin Correspondence Project - Essay: Natural selection & natural theology)" . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 165 is oddly formatted in comparison to the others. Suggest "Gray, Asa (May 28, 1874) "What is Darwinism" The Nation hosted at Darwin Correspondence Project, retireved (date)
Reformatted as above, giving "Gray, Asa (May 28, 1874), "What is Darwinism?", The Nation (Darwin Correspondence Project), retrieved on..." . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 168 is formatted oddly also. Suggest: Darwin Online Project Biography Darwin.org Retireved on .... Currently it's lacking a publisher, which is only given in the link title.
Reformatted to give "Biography, Darwin Online, 21 January..." . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Shouldn't "Summary of Darwin's theory" be rephrased into "Summary of concepts/ideas within the book" and the section begin with "The book describes what later would be called Darwin's theory. In this book, the concepts of the theory is split into these ideas:..." or something like this? Nergaal (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the lead makes it clear enough that the purpose of the book was to lay out Darwin's theory and make an an argument for it. I am not trying to be argumentative but I am just not understanding the reasoning behind your comment. In particular I am not understanding "what would later be called Darwin's theory". The theory has separate parts (natural selection, common descent etc.), but Darwin always viewed it as one single theory. Also all the secondary sources refer to it as "Darwin's theory", even when they are talking about things that preceded the wrtiting of Origin such as his transmutation notebooks, and his famous 1842 sketch of the theory. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, publication should be moved down after content and style, just before reception. Nergaal (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure about this. If we were to do it we would only move the last two subsections of what is now labled publication and merge the first two into the background section. I suspect that would work, but the way the article is organized now it tells a nicely narrated story that runs from the inception of the theory through the publication of the book, which I kind of like. However, if enough other people feel the reorganization is appropriate I will do it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Origin is unusual in that it was published before the author was ready - it was an "abstract" (the word appears in the working title) of the longer work D. planned., and was published in response to the emergency created by Wallace's article. So sub-section "Events leading to publication" is in the right place - you need both the preceding evolution of D.'s ideas and and the sudden pressure to publish in order to understand how the book came to be what it was. Sub-section "Time taken to publish" naturally follows "Events leading to publication", as the latter makes one wonder why D. did not publish earlier, and it makes sense to deal with what appears to be an urban myth that he previously delayed publication out of fear. It's less obvious where to place sub-sections "Publication and subsequent editions" and "Publication outside Great Britain". I suggest that alternative placements of these sub-sections would be worse: placing them after section "Structure and style" would split sections devoted to analysis of the work; section "Reception" should remain in one piece because it's a near-continuous debate that has taken longer than D. took to work out his ideas; and placing the remaining "publication" sub-sections at the end, after "Reception", would jolt the reader back from the present to the mid/late 19th century. --Philcha (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of non-Christian religions views on the book. n
The reliable sources consulted, including the most well regarded biographies of Darwin, didn't indicate any notable non-Christian religious views: while there were undoubtedly such views in later years, especially as translations became available, they don't seem to have become a notable issue within the scope of this article. . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this might not be necessary for other books, this one is controversial enough that it might require a separate section on "Present views/issues/debates". Nergaal (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been a strong consensus among the editors of this article not to spend much space on the creation-evolution controversy partly because it is covered so extensively elsewhere, partly becasue Origin is at least primarily work of scientific literature and there is a consensus here at Wikipedia to keep that controversy out of science related articles as much as possible (per WP:UNDUE) and partly because the modern version of that controversy does not much directly involve Origin (not true of 19th century religious debates which are covered in the reception section). However you have a valid point that if we have a "modern influence" section it is a little strange not to at least mention the ongoing controversy in the U.S. Therefore I have added a brief allusion to it with a link to the creation-evolution controversy article to that section in the hopes that that will satisfy everyone. There is also a brief allusion to the start of the curent controversy in the reception section. Rusty Cashman (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Present views/issues/debates", is discussed in On_the_Origin_of_Species#Modern_influence and deals primarily with the ways in which the ideas presented in The Origin have been extended and modified since its publication, in the formation of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The unlabelled lines do have names, but if you label all of them the text is too small to read. The labels therefore refer to phyla, with several families making up this grouping. Although I think it is less clear then the current version, the tree with more of the families labelled is File:Collapsed tree cropped.png. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • In the "Developments before Darwin's theory" section, I wonder if the phrase, "seeking Cartesian mechanical explanations" is very useful, since it can be seen as jargon, and the wikilinks would not provide the relevant information for someone seeking it, I don't think.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
I have not given the article a thorough review yet so I don't have an opinion on whether or not it meets FA although the article is impressive. The section at the end of the article titled "Religious attitudes" makes no mention of Catholic views. The Catholic Church is the worlds largest Christian denomination, over half of all Christians are Catholic, almost one fifth of the world's population. Official Church teaching accepts evolution as a possible explanation for creation but rejects attempts to use the theory to promote the religion of Atheism saying this goes beyond the bounds of science. The Church operates the world's largest non-govermental school system which teaches evolutionary theory in science classes alongside creationism in religion classes with no apparent problems. Maybe something could be added to this section to include Catholic viewpoint. NancyHeise talk 03:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a brief mention of Pope Pius XII's famous 1950 encyclical on evolution to the end of the section. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's better. I made some corrections and added another reference to supplement the primary document Humani Generis. The added source is a Nihil obstat, Imprimatur scholarly source on Catholic doctrine. NancyHeise talk 17:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are many ways this article could have gone horribly wrong but the editors got the big picture right:
    • The article is rightly focused on the book - background of its writing and publication history, editions and translations, it's content and revisions, and reviews and reception - and does not devolve into recentism, generic discussion of the theory of evolution and Darwin's other writings and contributions, or, worst of all, the recent US-centric creationism/ID vs evolution controversy.
    • It avoids peacockery ("most influential" etc) even when such encomiums could be "reliably" sourced; such labels are more suited to magazine articles than encyclopedias and this article rightly avoids them.
    • The sources used in the article are high quality and seem to be a fair sampling of the literature. The bibliography in this area is vast and ever expanding though, and the article can possibly benefit from the addition of material from some recent publications like The Cambridge Companion to the 'Origin of Species'.
So while I hope the article will continue to be improved (e.g., the Literary style section can be fleshed out) even after this FAC is closed, I am happy to support its promotion to a FA and look forward to seeing it on the main page on November 24th. Nice work with the article + responding to the reviewers. Abecedare (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. In response to your comment on the literary style section. I have added some material drawn from a Source, The Annotated Origin (Darwin, Costa 2009), that was just published last month. I have no doubt that as the Darwin Industry solders on, it will continue to produce new material that will be reflected in this article, and that there will be other improvements as well.Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Neutral This article contains an immense amount of information that is basic in shaping our current state of knowledge (maybe not the best way to word it, but I mean something like that as it is so fundamental yet immensely complex), and it is fascinating and engaging reading. The authors have done a terrific job of putting it all together in a way that makes sense, and expands the reader's thinking. However, I think I was too quick to support, as I see information is still being added. I will strike it out for now, until I catch up with the new material! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Sorry! I supported the article because it clearly focused on the book and did not get into some of the issues that have now been added. I am ambivalent about the direction the article is taking. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the near support, and it'll be appreciated if you could add some notes on the article talk page to point to the concerns with recent additions or revisions for discussion and resolution. . . dave souza, talk 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I have noticed several (possible) issues with the citation style consistency.
  • There seems to be no consistent choice for denoting the editor of a title. I have noted "ed." "(Editor)" and "(editor)" all being used.
  • The article generally follows the convention "Lastname, Firstname Other Initials" for author names. There are however a few exceptions that either spell out all names and some others that list only initials.
  • I would assume that this means that in some cases the source provided the author's middle initial and in some cases it did not. I think the citation should present the name the same way the source did. An exception would be a casle like the "Adrian Desmond" case mentioned below where it could be a little confusing because you have different sources who provided the same author's name in different forms. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine if the article used the form of the name as used on the referenced publication. Again this is not what is happening, for example "an essay on the principle of population" lists its author as T.R. Malthus, but the article follows the form used by econlib.org using his full name.
I am just not seeing the problem or any possible solution here. I don't see how this could be standardized. In the case of Thomas Malthus his full name is quite well known and I don't see any problem in using it. In the case of E. Janet Browne I have no ideat what the E. stands for. Even her wikipeda article doesn't say. I suppose if I did enough research I could find out, but I don't think it is worth it, nor do I think it would be wise to use her full name since she is best known as either E. Janet Browne or Janet Browne and using another form of her name would probably just be confusing. Similarly I would not use Charles Robert Darwin or even Charles R. Darwin because I think that would just confuse things. I do think in the dase of Desmond you had a point because it is confusing to use two different forms of the same author's name on different sources, but other wise I don' see what is wrong with using "Peter J. Bowler" with a middle initial and "David Quammen" without given that those are the most common representations of those individual's names. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(TimothyRias (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

About E. Janet thing, this actual consistent with the rest of the refs. (you spell out the primary given name, which in this case happens to be the middle instead of the first name. I see the problem with trying to spell out names where only initials are given. (which is why I tend to use only initials since those are always available) At least the article is semi-consistent with regard to this aspect. (It is not like you are at random switching between full names and initials.) So it should be OK. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • When authors are referenced multiple times usually only the first occurance is wikilinked. Some authors are wikilinked multiple times, (eg. Peter J. Bowler).
  • Are "Adrian J. Desmond" and "Adrian Desmond" the same person?
  • Yes. I have fixed it to read Adrian Desmond in both cases.
  • Some titles are capitalized using the 'American' convention (capilize all nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs) while others use the 'British' convention (capitalize only first letter and proper nouns.
(TimothyRias (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Perhaps there is some WP policy I am not aware of, but I would assume that the citation should follow the same convention as the source did. Since this article uses some books published in Britain and some books published in America it is not surprising that not all the sources use the same convention. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article isn't doing that either. Take for example the references to "On the Origin of Species" itself. The source (i.e. the book itself) uses all caps, the Darwin online website linked to from reference has the title in normal sentence case, and yet the reference itself has the title in title case. Anyway, the choice on which case to use is a purely stylistic one and is part of the citation style, just like whether you present the title in italics or not. I'm not aware of a specific WP guideline talking about what case to use, however, this falls under the general guideline that citation style should be consistent throughout an article. (TimothyRias (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, I have gone through the references and I think they are all now using the same capitalization style. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns as follow:

  • File:Asa Gray, US botanist.jpg: US copyright law is centered primarily on first publishing date. When was this photo (if ever) published, i.e. printed in books, magazines, etc, or copies passed around to the public? Furthermore, which part of http://www.umich.edu/~bhl/ is it at?
    I have been trying to figure out where the image originally came from without much luck, I just took it from the Asa Gray article and noted that it was labled as public domain. Interestingly, it has since been replaced by another better photo in that article. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any better information available on the source for that photo other than that it was taken circa 1880. However, when I was looking at google books in a futile effort to find a published source for either of the photos. I found a third good picture of Gray at the front of a biography on him published in 1890 a couple of years after his death. I will see tomorrow (it is late tonight) if I can upload it and use it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In case you want other choices than the one you are going to upload, File:Asa Gray (1867).jpg, File:Asa Gray (1841).jpg, and File:Asa Gray01.jpg are verifiably public domain pictures of Asa Gray. Jappalang (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, File:Asa Gray (1867).jpg looks ideal as it shows Gray around the time that he was helping to get the book published, rather than later when he grew the beard. It would also suit the image being placed on the left, which could help the layout. . . dave souza, talk 14:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I used it. As a bonus since it looks straight ahead I was able to restore the left/right alteration of images, and this image is clearly sourced to a 1903 book, which should put it indisputably in the public domain. Thanks for the help. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cuvier elephant jaw.jpg: which paper of Cuvier did this appear in? I checked both 1876 1796 papers,[2][3] and it was not in either of them.
    The image is from a paper on living and fossil elephants that Cuvier presented to the French academy of sciences in 1796. It was actually publised under the title Mémoires sur les espèces d'éléphants vivants et fossiles in 1800. The image is reproduced in Rudwick, Martin J.S. (1997). Georges Cuvier, Fossil Bones, and Geological Catastrophes among other places including UC Berkley's paleontology website here.Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the Berkeley site states the drawing to be published in 1798, while Rudwick's book states 1799. As said earlier, this is the 1796 text (presentation) of Mémoires sur les espèces d'éléphants vivants et fossiles (published in Magazin Encyclopaedia) and it had no drawings. Thanks to Rudwick's book, however, the point now seems moot. Jappalang (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but you are correct. Close reading of the caption in Rudwick's book makes it clear that the image was published with the 1799 printed version of the paper, not with the original text presented to the academy in 1796. I have corrected the caption to reflect this and I will review the captions in the articles I have used this image. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must have had too much of spirit of '76 when I wrote the year of 1876 above (corrected to 1796)... Jappalang (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleared. Jappalang (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a really impressive article; it does an admirable job of synthesizing the large amount of modern historical writing and it hits all the major themes and balances them quite well. I can think of a few things that get short shrift and will probably need to be improved in the future, in particular related to the significance and broader context of Darwin's reliance on evidence from selective breeding and the reception of the book among breeders. But this stuff is still developing and hasn't been published yet (so far as I know); as Rusty notes, the Darwin Industry keeps on churning.--ragesoss (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something that described the impact of Origin on selective breeding practices would be quite interesting and certainly worth brief mention in the article. I would be surprised if there wasn't such an impact, but I have never run accross a source that discussed it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I did the GA review on this, so I've held off until I saw the comments from reviewers with no previous involvement. My main concern in the GA review was the length of the "plot summary", but that was only my opinion. Reviewers at this page seem happy with the length of the "plot summary", and I accept the consensus. I think the article's coverage and balance are excellent and I found it extremely interesting despite reading it during the slog of a review. I've done a few articles on very large topics so I'm aware of how much of the research and draft text winds up on the cutting room floor in such cases. I greatly appreciate Dave and Rusty's courage, determination and skill in improving this huge article in order for it to reach FA status. --Philcha (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Rageross - it can & will still improve but clearly meets FA standards already. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/On_the_Origin_of_Species/archive1&oldid=1088204713"