Talk:Mutationism/GA1

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Chiswick Chap in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for the careful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

edit
They're for clarity of story-telling, as they give the reader a historical overview in the table of contents, which is restricted to two levels. I'd be very loth to collapse the article to just top-level sections, which would indeed be very long; and even more so to leave the longer sections named, tacking the shorter ones on somehow or other.
Fixed.
Done, but there were only one or two.
I think we need both: the original Dutch term is used by historians.
Added.
  • when you're quoting something, you have to have a comma before the quotation marks (for example, "endorsed a theory of saltational evolution that 'monstrosities could...' " → "endorsed a theory of saltational evolution that,'monstrosities could...' "), unless it's just a phrase (like "Wilhelm Johannsen's 'pure line' experiments..." is fine)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
That may be a Yank/Brit thing... I've looked through my usages and am happy with them.
Added note: Kölliker meant orthogenesis, possibly with a touch of vitalism.
Discontinuous variation was the term he used, and it's not a synonym for saltation, that was misleading. Said "implying a form of saltation".
Yes, that was part 1. I've added URLs for both parts.
Again I suspect that's a Yank/Brit thing, I would find a comma totally jarring right there.
  • A lot of these refs are probably written in German, so they need to have the parameter language=German
added German/Dutch/Danish as appropriate.
Added "indeed": I've correctly used the simple past for what Yule did, and the pluperfect for the rare occasion when I needed to refer yet further back to Mendel's actions.
Provine's words, not mine, and he wasn't being sarcastic. I read Yule's papers and they are indeed good. I've cited the word directly.
  • " 'Einige Ergebnisse von Kreuzungen bei Hafer und Weizen' " needs to be italicized in the Nilsson-Ehle's experiments on Mendelian inheritance and continuous variation, 1908 section
Done.
  • In the Nilsson-Ehle's experiments on Mendelian inheritance and continuous variation, 1908 section when you're listing what he found, you may want to use semi-colons instead of periods to better connect each thought and so you don't have to keep using "he found"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Good idea, done.
Done.
Done.
It's correct: "while W rejected N as mistaken, G etc said it was a relevant alternative."
Formatted.
Converted.
Added.

References

edit
Added.
Added.
Fixed.
Formatted.
Added.
  • ref no. 5 has an ISBN 978-0-12-088777-4
Added.
Indeed.
Hopefully all done now.

More refs

edit
Well, maybe they do but providing urls for old books is certainly beyond the requirement here. I'll take a quick look. If you feel it's important, feel free to join in and add some. I've added the URL and page range for ref 4, Osborn, and others below.Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Well yes, but hardly necessary. However, wikilink and URL added. ISBNs for much later editions only.
Added.
Added.
Added publisher, and in doing so I located a suitable URL...
Fixed.
Added.
There's a URL, added, but Google haven't scanned the text yet.
Added.
Maybe, but again this is beyond the GA criteria. I have found online sources for all but one citation, a work by Willis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Images

edit
Added.
No, I'm not.
As above, but I've added refs anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply