Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of evolutionary thought

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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:07, 28 July 2008 [1].

History of evolutionary thought[edit]

Nominator(s): Rusty Cashman
previous FAC (14:00, 15 December 2007)


It has taken a long time but I believe that all the issues that were raised during the December nomination have been addressed, and I think this article is now one of the best history of science articles on Wikipedia and fully meets the FA criteria. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have yet to do a more thorough examination, but I've fixed a few simple things in the article to start: the hatnote has been standardized to use {{otheruses4}} instead of :'', the references section now properly uses {{reflist}}, and I've fixed all of the links to disambiguation pages except one to Variation which is somewhat ambiguous as well in the text—I tagged it instead with a disambiguation-needed note. The article looks quite thorough based on my quick skim, though: I would say that criterion 1b will probably not be a problem. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the link disambiguation and template updates, I have disambiguated the variation link to point to genetic diversity which is the meaning of the term used throughout this article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The colons at the end of section titles that don't have anything after them look really awkward. Remove the colons when they are the last character in a section's title. Gary King (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, the TOL project supplied the data, but I generated the image. Data cannot be copyrighted. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the image pages to show the original sources. The problem was that someone converted the original images from jpeg (or in the case of the great chain of being from GIF) to png and didn't copy over all the information. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --NE2 17:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could make a case that hypatia-lovers.com is a reasonable source for material on a Greek philosopher, but I admit the point could be argued because the only conventionally published work (that I can find evidence of) by the author of the piece (Khan Amore) is a historical novel not a work of non fiction. Therefore I have replaced the originally cited source with an article from the Internet Enclopedia of Philosophy [[2]] that is written by a Professor of Classics at the Uninversity of Ireland, Maynooth, and which cites its own sources. The new source says the same things the old one did but in duller prose, and I hope it should be considered unimpeachable. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TalkOrigins is a use group, but it is a very well known source for information on evolution and the evolution-creation-controversy and articles in its archives are routinely used as sources for artices on those topics (such as objections to evolution) here at Wikipedia, and some of their stuff has been published conventionally (The Counter Creationism Handbook is just a snapshot of TalkOrigins database of creationist claims and rebutals published in book form). I don't see any problem in using such a TalkOrigin archives article as a source for a routine translation of Aristotles comments on Empedocles. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a problem using such a source in an FA. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have a dead tree translation of Aristotle's Pysics from Britanica's great books at home. I will substitute that translation instead when I get home. Though I prefer a linkable web source the only 2 I can find are this one and the one at hypatia-lovers.com which has also been objected to as a reliable source. So I will go dead tree on this one. I don't like the implications of TalkOrigins archives not being considered a reliable source however. That could be a problem for other FA and future FA articles as not everything found there will have an alternative dead tree source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok to avoid argument I have replaced the text of the translation with an almost identical translation from text of Aristotle's Physics from MIT and cited the new source. I still dislike characterizing TalkOrigins archives as not being a reliable source though. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For Talk origins, you'd have to individually show that the particular author of a post is well known in their field and published widely in the field with a good reputation. There can't be any blanket "reliablitiy" standard for usenet/web forum posts. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 7 "Daoism and Nature" needs a last access date.
    Reviewed reference at source and added last access date as today. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/Aristotl.htm a reliable source? Note that the author seems to be a biology professor, not a specialist in philosophy or the history of science?
I also think I could have defended this source, but it turns out that it was redundant, as another source that was added later covered all the same points. Therefore I just deleted the disputed source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 27 has the publisher in the title link. Please, for consistency with the other references, put it outside the link.
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all of these comments have now been addressed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I wonder about this repetition first under Greek thought:

This scala naturæ, described in History of Animals, classified organisms in relation to a hierarchical "Ladder of Life" or "Chain of Being", placing them according to complexity of structure and function, with organisms that showed greater vitality and ability to move described as "higher organisms".[4]

Then, a couple of short paragraphs down, under Middle Ages > Christian thought and the great chain of being you have:

and of all potential life forms being present in a perfect creation, to organize all inanimate, animate, and spiritual beings into a huge interconnected system: the scala naturæ, or great chain of being.

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has bee discussed on the article talk page. Aristotle's Ladder of Life was a biologic system of classification for animals. The Christian Great Chain of Being was a much bigger metaphysical idea that included both natural and supernatural elements. It is true that one was partly derived from the other, but they are not the same thing even if the Christian theologans happened to use the same Latin term, scala naturae, for both. The cited source is clear about this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Comment—It's a good article and I'm leaning toward support. But I did find a few issues that could be corrected:)
    • Why is there a year range for Plato and Aristotle, but not for other individuals?
I have now provided dates for all the people mentioned in the Antiquity section although the dates for Anaximander and Empedocles are approsimate, and the best I could do for Zhuangzi wss that he lived sometime around the 4th century BC. I don't see any reason to provide dates for people mentioned in the other sections as there are other dates in those sections that provide chronological context. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To maintain the correct historical sequence, shouldn't the Islamic thought section go before the Christian thought section?
Done. You are right, although Christian and Islamic thought developed in parallel the Islamic ideas discussed started earlier. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence seems confusing, or at least puzzlingly ambiguous, and I think it needs a re-write: "Unlike Cuvier, Buckland and some other advocates of natural theology among British geologists made efforts to explicitly link the last catastrophic episode to the biblical flood."
I believe I have now clarified the sentence. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The various instances of "earth" should be capitalized to disambiguate them from dirt. "solar system" should also be capilalized.
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "1920s–1940s" sections, please insert paragraph breaks for ease of reading.
    Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rusty Cashman: I've marked some spots in the "1920s–1940s" sections where I think paragraph breaks would be most natural. I'm not sure of the reference structure, however, as those big paragraphs have their refs all at the end—so I've left off actually implementing paragraph breaks. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and I clarified where the Mayr and Provine citations really applied. The Bowler and Larson citations really are global because they (quite reasonably) treat the subjects as closely related and cover them with entire chapters .Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I change my position to support.—RJH (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should say that I find the article fascinating and will support it. Also, on review, I might have been wrong about the source I criticized above and that you changed on my account. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well all is well that ends well and for a translation of a qoutation from Aristotle a full translation of the entire work probably does make a better source than an essay with a snipet no doubt taken from some other full translation. I do think there is some great material in the TalkOrigin archive though, and I am sure some other FA article will use it as a source, for something that can't so easily be found somewhere else. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The use of "Darwinism" is inappropriate, unless it is in a historical sense or in discussing creationism. In the lead, it states that the term is "often used." In general, not by scientists. Darwinism is a pejorative term hijacked by fundamental religionists to imply that studying Evolution is like a religion. However, to confuse me and the reader, the editor uses Darwinism correctly later in the article to describe Darwin's specific theory of Evolution, which does make sense in a historical context. But if one reads the lead, one assumes that Evolution=Darwinism, but later in the article, apparently Darwinism (really meaning the early theory, not the totality of Evolution) is eclipsed. Well, I contend that Darwin's theories have not been eclipsed, just added to the overall Evolutionary synthesis, but worse is the fact that a casual, slightly biased reader would then say, "see, Darwinism is dead." And if this article is a history of evolutionary thought, it should clearly state that the word Darwinism has a different context today than it did 100 years ago. That alone indicates a weakness and possible POV in the article.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so it's clear, I think this is a great article, and should eventually become FA. It's just that the bias inherent to the word "Darwinism" has a negative meaning to anyone who studies Evolution. I think the lead needs to reflect the bias in the word. And again, if this is truly a history of evolutionary thought, why wouldn't we discuss how that term has changed in meaning? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rusty and I have reworded the lead a bit more. The misuse of the word "Darwinism" by creationists is probably better ignored in this article, since it deals with the history of genuine evolutionary theory, not religious-political maneuvering. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree that the creationist discussion doesn't belong here, but I thought if there was going to be some push-back on continuing to use Darwinism, then the historical context needs to be explained. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the section titles are a bit clumsy, which makes it difficult to anticipate what it's going to discuss. Specifically "Anticipations of natural selection", "Unconventional evolutionary thought", and the remaining sections that use "thought" in the title. Usually, an individual has a thought. A people or group would have an "idea", "opinion", or "theory". When I looked at this article a few months ago, it bothered me then, but I think I was so obsessed with "Darwinism" I forgot to bring it up.
I've either shortened the sections titles, ore replaced "thought", where appropriate, with "philosophy". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do wish the headings could be shortened and be more focused. Since Anticipations of natural selection is already under 19th century before On the Origin of Species, could it be shorted to Pre natural selection or something like that? Also, is Evo-devo a common term, as I have never heard it? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common abbreviation, but you're right that we should use the full term as the subject heading. I've substituted "Evolutionary developmental biology" Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm almost certain that the "other uses" redirecting to Evolutionism is inappropriate. Shouldn't that redirect to modern evolutionary synthesis or something to that effect? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has bothered me that the wikilink to modern evolutionary synthesis is so far down in the article and placed in a way that it is easy to overlook or ignore. I see that is no longer the case. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope I am not being ignorant, but Plato (427/8–347/8 BC)? Are these normal dates?
That was the way the dates are presented in Plato, however I have switched to (c. 428-348 BC) which is a more standard way of presenting approximate or uncertain dates per the MoS. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first Muslim biologist and philosopher to put forth detailed speculations about evolution was the Afro-Arab writer al-Jahiz in the 9th century. He considered the effects of the environment on an animal's chances for survival, and described the struggle for existence." Is it right to wikilink Darwin here?
I have removed the wiki-link. It was questionable because Al-Jahiz talks a great deal about the struggle for existence, but it is not so clear that he is talking about natural selection. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He compared these early theories to the modern Darwinian theory of evolution of his time, arguing that the former were developed " - do you mean to wikilink Darwinism here, considering its meaning now, referred to above?
I think this is Ok. Darwinism describes both the historical and modern meanings of the term, and we can't get away from the term here (because it is a quotation) and so it is probably best to link it for explanation. Especially since we no longer give the historical definition in the lead like we used to. In fact I think I will go back and link the term in the Huxley quote as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if Mattisse and OrangeMarlin could take a minute and let Tim and myself know if you feel any of your previous comments have not been satisfactorly addressed. Between the complex nested comments and responses here and the comments some other editors have been leaving on the talk page, I am afraid something might slip through the cracks or that there might be a misunderstanding about what has been addressed and what has not been. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my comments have been addressed. I still have a hesitancy about the TOC, that the section headings are needlessly long and inconsistent. However, I have been unable to find MoS statements specifically addressing this, so perhaps I am wrong about any requirement along those lines. I also have minor quibbles about the order in which topics are introduced; for example, Darwin seems to pervade the entire article although the evidence in the article shows that he was only one of many who contributed to the history of evolution. Also, the overlapping of dates is a little confusing, for example, in sections titled after a date range but not containing everything in the article within that range. Am I making sense? Anyway, these are my own quibbles and others may not agree. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue Mattisse raises seems to arise from minor and probably unneccessary references looking forward to Darwin in earlier sections – in the Islamic "He compared these early theories to the modern Darwinian theory of evolution of his time" could be simply "He compared these early theories to the modern evolutionary theory of his time", thus avoiding the diversion into all the various meanings of "Darwinism" (an article i'm in the midst of revising), and in the Great chain of being section the reference to "a saying which Charles Darwin often quoted: natura non facit saltum ("nature does not make leaps")" is not helped by the reference to Darwin – if mentioned at all, that should be discussed in relation to Darwin dealing with the saltationist ideas of his contemporaries, including Huxley. There may be other instances. . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed or reworded those two early references to Darwin. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The article overall appears excellent to me, at the moment I'm a bit bogged down in detail so may comment later. . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "While transmutation of species was accepted by a sizable number of scientists before 1859" - I know the FAC editors do not like this kind of vague wording. Is "sizable number" most scientists? Also, there is quite a bit of unnecessary passive voice in this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the wording to "By the 1850s whether or not species evolved was a subject of intense debate, with promininent scientists arguing both sides of the issue.", which I think is stonger and which closely follows (Larson 2003 p. 50). I can't get much more precise than that and remain faithful to the source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComment Prose is good, structure is good. A couple of points
    • Haldane's role in population genetics is noted but skipped in the modern evolutionary synthesis. Something that has been suggested as wilful neglect on the part of Ernst Mayr.(Unable to trace citation, but there is something in the last 5 years on this) It may be good idea to make amends and include him in the evolutionary synthesis part.
It is true that there has been some controversy on this issue in the past, with some accounts (inlcuding that of Provine prior to the 1990s) treating the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright in integrating Mendelian genetics with natural selection as if that was the modern evolutionary synthesis. However, the current consensus among historians of science as reflected in (Mayr and Provine 1995), which represents a shift it position by Provine, (Bowler 2003), (Larson 2004), and (Bowler and Morus 2005) is to treat the foundation of population genetics in the 1920s as a key step towards the synthesis but defining the synthesis itself as the work in the 1930s and 1940s by field naturalists, paleontologists, and botanists to synthesize their disciplines with the new ideas from population genetics to produce a new universal theory about how evolution worked. This is the position taken by modern evolutionary synthesis and I believe it represents current consensus among historians of science. Incidentally this issue was thrashed out in depth in talk page discussions on [[modern evolutionary synthesis] with me arguing the other side (based on older sources I had read) before I was convinced I was wrong.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the archives of the talk pages of MES but still find no discussions on Haldane's role although the page itself does not deny credit to him (as Mayr apparently did). The following has more on the issue - Sarkar, Sahotra (2007) Haldane and the emergence of modern evolutionary theory. Pages 49- In Philosophy of Biology by Mohan Matthen and Christopher Stephens. Elsevier. ISBN 0444515437 http://books.google.no/books?id=bVww2ZPO258C&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=Haldane+Sahotra+Sarkar&source=web&ots=38GlKX7EJV&sig=p7Ll8-15pmbxq_B23WeYLpY2r2Q&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result Shyamal (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was not about Haldane specifically , but rather about the treatment of the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright together as part of the story of the modern evolutionary syhnthesis. Mayr is stingy in his treatment of all of what he called the practitioners of "bean bag" genetics, which included Haldane, Fisher, (and to a lesser extent Wright). This was at least in part due to his frustration with earlier accounts that treated the creation of population genetics as if that was the entire evolutionary synthesis. However, this portion of the article does not follow Mayr (and only follows Mayr and Provine for a few specific points) rather the main account follows (Larson 2004) and (Bowler 2003) which treat Haldane's work as quite important (especially Larson) as does this article. I just don't see the problem with the current text of the article, which clearly says that the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright was foundational to the field of population genetics and that population genetics was a key step in modern evolutionary theory. I just don't see what else would be needed or appropriate. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the section on the synthesis makes it appear that the population geneticists did not know where their work fitted in the scheme of things and that Dobzhansky "bridged the divide between"... That "divide" seems to have been introduced by Mayr and that is where I feel amends must be made. Hope you found the piece above of use, not all pages seem to be visible on Google books, but I think that should be sufficiently relevant. The current text seems to fail to note the large number of players in the synthesis as indicated fairly well in the main article on the MES. Shyamal (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a little text making the point more explicit that the development of population genetics and the integration of Mendelian genetics with natural selection was the key first step in the synthesis. As to the gap Dobzhansky "bridged" most historians now believe that was real enough. The work of the population geneticists was highly mathematical and not read/understood by many field naturalilsts or paleontologists and the models the population geneticists used for real world populations were too simple, under estimating the degree of genetic diversity, and the importance of genetically distinct sup-populations. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I added some as well with a rewording that links to microevolution and macroevolution. If you think the phrasing needs an additional citation, you can use Mayr, E. (1988) TOWARD A NEW PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY: OBSERVATIONS OF AN EVOLUTIONIST, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA USA and he is quoted here http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html. Shyamal (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Microbiology has just recently developed into an evolutionary discipline is rather an odd statement. Indeed Luria and Delbrück's; and Lederberg's replica plating experiments should be pioneering. I suspect that the wording was intended to indicate that only with the advent of sequencing has microbial phylogeny been put on a firm footing.
I have reworded the text. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gaia as an extension of the endosymbiotic theory is one way of connecting the ideas in this section to the earlier parts. I think the view may be found in some work(s) by Margulis herself.

Shyamal (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a linking sentence with a citation. Shyamal (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can the "c." before dates be expanded to either "circa" or "around"? and what is "d."?
Yes, and d. means died. It is used when only the date of death is known. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: final paragraph of "1859–1930s: Darwin and his legacy" is uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sections on the Chinese and Romans need some work, I think. The Chinese paragraph especially is woefully short and doesn't really explain much, and both need to have their connections to evolutionary thought more thoroughly explained. Also, you shouldn't have a section in the plural ("Unconventional ideas") if only one example is present. And if only one unconventional idea exists, why not just make the Gaia hypotheses a top section of its own. But surely there is more than one unconventional way of thinking about evolution. There are Christians who believe that God guided evolution, for example, which I'm pretty sure has been written about. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed the section to "unconvential evolutioanry theory". Theistic evolution is addressed under "alternatives to natural selection". I will look at the Chinese tomorrow.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strengthened the Chinese section a little. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1) The section on Lucretius is very misleading: the default expectation with anything in Lucretius is that it is Epicurean doctrine, not his own ideas. Some experts (Sedley) would go so far as to say that Lucretius is only reporting the doctrine of Epicurus himself and ignoring subsequent developments. You could partly avoid the problems by making the section "Greeks and Romans" (it's a continuous tradition in any case); but you should also be careful with the wording (don't imply that we know or even think that this is Lucretius' own idea). 2) The summary of Lucretius also looks wrong (e. g. if I remember correctly it's the evolution of society that Lucretius is talking about with humans, not some biological change, which is the impression that the reader gets from your text). 3) Reference to primary sources, the actual place in Lucretius where he says these things, is desirable (alongside secondary lit., if it's reliable). There's a commentary on the relevant parts of Lucr. by Gordon Campbell, Lucretius on Creation and Evolution: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura, Book Five, Lines 772-1104, Oxford: OUP, 2004. ISBN 0199263965. N p holmes (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found two good sources on Lucretius [3] and [4] I will reword the section based on these sources tomorrow. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I more or less completely rewrote the section on Lucretius. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't notice any inaccuracies in the rewritten section, though I still think you'd do better to put Lucretius at the end of a Greeks and Romans section. It's slightly lacking in detail now, perhaps. If the decision on Featured article status is going to take a while, I could suggest specific wording; but it'll do as it is. N p holmes (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's getting there. While not perfect in terms of balance, I think the material through the modern synthesis is in pretty good shape. I have some more major issues with the post-molecular biology sections that I'm in the process of describing on the talk page and trying to work out in the article.--ragesoss (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the last three sections especially, there is too much use of the passive voice, from my point of view. Are there not any names that can be attached to varying views? It makes the more recent times seem dull compared to the contrasting views of individuals and schools in previous centuries. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that ragesoss's efforts will address some of these concerns. Hoever it is a simple truism that with history of science articles that cover big topics like evolution it is impossible to cover later developments in the same depth as it is possible to cover ealier ones. This of course is because of the exponential growth of scientific activity during the 20th century. The lack of historical perspective on recent developments hurts as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My concerns have been remedied. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:16, 27 July 2008 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_evolutionary_thought&oldid=1138462961"