Talk:Function (biology)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think refs no. 2, 3, 5, 6, 16, 17, and 20 are formatted right User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted.

Why do you mention philosophy of biology in the In evolutionary biology when you already have the In philosophy of biology section? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So as to form a complete list; I've tweaked the wording to show that's another section.

"...which contributes to evolutionary success," doesn't have a ref User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biologists take this as axiomatic, but I've reffed it in belt-and-braces style.

I feel like instead of saying, "More recent defenses of causal-role theory of function include..." and, "Other defenses of selected effect theories include..." you could incorporate what they said into the text. Those sentences themselves seem unnecessary User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Removed, the remaining text already says what they said.

Typo, "...said to be the function of zebra strikes" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

I think you rely a little too much on wikilinks to explain things in some places. I know you wikilinked it but could you briefly explain what the Cuvier–Geoffroy debate is? I don't understand the second sentence of Anatomy User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explained. There isn't an Anatomy section; I've clarified the second sentence of Adaptation in case that was what you intended.