Talk:Peppered moth evolution/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vocem Virtutis (talk · contribs) 18:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey! This is my first time running a review, but it's something I've had interest in for a long time, and this subject is one that I've done some research on before, am interested in, and would enjoy getting to be a small part of!

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Overall, the article is well-written, though there are a few minor grammatical errors. As long as the errors are minor, I'll help to resolve them myself; if there are larger issues I've missed to this point, I'll let you know so they can be resolved. This is the last section of the review I'll complete because, frankly, it's the most tedious one in my mind.

   Ok, I've gone through it, having borrowed my English teacher's academical cap and red pen, and made a bunch of very minor changes to grammar and punctuation. Or as the usual Wikipedia edit comment has it in such circumstances, "grammer".

   Thanks! I'll take another look once I'm done checking the sources!

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Overall, a neutral point of view is held throughout most all the article. The only line that I see that ought be clarified is the last line of Kettlewell's Experiment. The line reads "However, peppered moths do rest on tree trunks on occasion, and there is little difference between the 'staged' photos and 'unstaged' ones." Because the second claim in the sentence is subjective, it would be good to directly mention the person calling the difference in the photos "little".

   Attributed and Wikilinked.

   Awesome, thank you!

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Resolved

Alright, I've run through the whole article again, checking the sources in the process. Again, I think it's a really solid article overall, but these are the six places where I think there could be some improvement:

1. In the Origin and Evolution section, it's written that "The first black specimen (of unknown origin) was kept in the University of Oxford in 1811." Meanwhile, the source says that the first melanic moth specimen dates to BEFORE 1811. Though it isn't stated explicitly, I think the reader might get the impression that 1811 is the year that this specimen was first discovered, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Tweaked.

2. At the end of the Origin and Evolution section is the claim that "Similar results were found in America." If possible, this should be more specific. Are we talking North America, South America, the USA, the Americas as a whole, or something else entirely?

Cook says North America: added.

3. In the Genetics section, the first two sentences of the last paragraph read "The gene for carbonaria in B. betularia was thought to be in a region of chromosome 17, but it was later concluded that it could not contain it because none of the genes in the chromosome coded for either wing pattern or melanisation. The region that was used to find it was the first intron of the orthologue of the cortex gene in Drosophila." I think that because there are a few different pronouns all being used next to each other, the sentences both come out feeling a bit clunky.

Reworded.

4. In the Kettlewell's Experiment section is the sentence "He was accompanied by Nico Tinbergen, and they made a film together." I think that this feels just a little out of the context of the paragraph as a whole. I think it may come out better to either add a small bit of information tying the film back to the experiment or to entirely separate the information about the film from the rest of the paragraph.

Removed.

5. In the Criticisms subsection of Kettlewell's, Judith Hooper is quoted in the sentence "She then alleged that scientists in general showed "credulous and biased" acceptance of evolution." This is the source linked to the quote. I checked the source multiple times, and while it's possible that I just missed those words, I couldn't find where Hooper actually made this claim.

Removed.

6. Also in the Criticisms subsection is the following: "The intelligent design advocate Jonathan Wells wrote an essay on the subject, a shortened version of which appeared in the 24 May 1999 issue of The Scientist, claiming that "In 25 years of fieldwork, C. A. Clarke and his colleagues found only one peppered moth on a tree trunk", and concluding that "The fact that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks invalidates Kettlewell's experiments". This is the source cited. Comparing the source to the article, the quote referencing Wells' conclusion is incomplete. That being the case, the quote should either be grammatically restructured to note that it is not complete, or should be included in the article in its entirety. Personally, I would prefer the latter option because the second half of Wells' quote ties back to the already-mentioned concept of industrial melanism, but either way the quote is handled would be an improvement.

Quotations are essentially always "incomplete" in that they are small extracts from often long books, articles, or speeches; the best that can be hoped for is that they give an indication of the tone and types of claims that were made. I've removed the mention of Clarke and his quote as unhelpful; but Wells's attack on Kettlewell is certainly characteristic of Wells's style and approach. So I think you'll find the paragraph better focussed now.

Goodness, I'm looking back at what I wrote on this particular point, and I'm not even entirely sure what I was trying to say. I initially thought that the quote structure was off somehow, but I'm pretty sure I might have made something up. Whatever the case, the quote works as it is currently.

That's all of my criticism! I think that you did a great job on the article, and though I'll read through it one more time after you address the above concerns, I expect that the good article criteria will be sufficiently met. Thanks again! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Vocem Virtutis

All done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

7. One last place for improvement that I'm seeing is in the lead, where it reads "The dark-coloured or melanic form of the peppered moth (var. carbonaria) was not known before 1811." This issue ties back to the first point above.

Tweaked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Final Review

I am passing this good article review on the evolution of the peppered moth. I believe it meets all six criteria necessary to be considered a good article. The article is well-written, stable, and neutral in point of view. The page covers the scientific part of the process of peppered moth evolution, including information regarding the genetics of the peppered moths, the frequencies of the two phenotypes over time, and the two most essential experiments conducted on the topic. Furthermore, the article delves into the cultural scene, explaining the criticism of Kettlewell's initial experiment and the significance of peppered moth evolution in regards to certain creationists' views. The article also sufficiently encapsulates the importance of peppered moth evolution as a go-to example of Darwin's theory of natural selection in action. The sources for the article have been checked, and any changes to the article necessary for the sake of verifiability have been made. Finally, all illustrations in the review are relevant and used properly, with appropriate captions. Vocem Virtutis (talk)