Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolution

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 17:04, 10 June 2007.

---

Evolution

Evolution is one of the central concepts in science and this article is a core topic. This is a self-nomination and this article is an ex-FA that was delisted in February. The article has just completed a thorough peer-review. Although this article is 97 kb in size, this is due to a high level of referencing demanded by this occasionally contentious topic and it has only 48 kb of readable text. Reviewers concerned about neutral point of view issues may find their questions answered in the Talk:Evolution/FAQ. TimVickers 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

previous FAC

FARC

Since this is turning into peer-review length (*cough* *cough*), I'm adding a count of supports, unresolved comments (comments that have been replied to or crossed out are considered resolved), objects: 20/0/1 (note: Adam's support is hard to see, in the middle of some crossed out stuff) [Moved it to start - Adam] Comment presumed by TimVickers: dated but not signed 12:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well. It's going to emerge from this a much stronger article than the one that left the FARC, or last hit FAC. It's worth it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. Started giving it a skim and so far it looks much improved since the last time I saw this article. A few thoughts:
  • 'However, the optimal mutation rate for an organism is a trade-off between short-term costs, such as the risk of cancer, and the long-term benefits of advantageous mutations' - either the point being made is more subtle than the one I think is being made, or this is written very awkwardly. It sounds like there is an 'optimum' mutation rate that will deliver benefits to one particular organism - ie, a specific individual - maybe plausible in a few cases, but I think what you're going for is adaptive mutation over time.

Reworded to "Therefore, the optimal mutation rate for an species..." TimVickers 15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • 'One possible advantage of genome duplication...' a) the phrase 'gene duplication' is better, lest someone think the entire genome is being multiplied, and b) 'possible'? I thought this was fairly well established.

Reworded to "One advantage of gene duplication..." TimVickers 15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Mentioning transposons is nice, but the short paragraph about them doesn't go into much detail, and I would think 'selfish genetic elements' might be of interest. Maybe it's a bit too specific, but the selfishness of transposons is sort of a classic example of the 'replicator' view of evolution. (Maybe also mention/link viroids?)

This is covered in the "Natural selection" section, as discussing selfish DNA requires concepts that have not yet been introduced in the mutation section. TimVickers 15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • There are a couple of 'hidden' wikilinks, eg, the text 'expansions into new habitats' is linked to founder effect. This is a matter of style but I always find that annoying when reading an article.

This was in response to the FAR noting that there were too many parentheses in the article and one of the peer-reviewers commenting that the early parts used terms that were only defined later. I've chosen to try to use defining wikilinks (such as expansion into new habitats) in early sections where this concept is noted but not discussed, and then use the full link founder effect in the later, specialised section. TimVickers 15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • While a very quick glance through the references suggests that you've chosen very good sources, I honestly think the text is too dense with footnotes. An example is 'Gene flow is the exchange of genes between populations, which are usually of the same species.' - why does this need a footnote? As a reader, I'd rather that the general or foundational references be separated from the thicket somehow (IIRC we put a little symbol on the important ones in RNA interference). Another thing to reduce clutter is to combine multiple sources into one note if none are repeated, eg, 'prokaryotes...constitute the vast majority of Earth's biodiversity'.

The guide is that that cites are needed for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Most of these statements may seem innocuous from our scientific perspective, but not everybody sees this material in such an uncontroversial light. Prokaryotes refs condensed. TimVickers 15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • At some point we seem to have evolved the notion that 50k of reference text belongs before the further reading/external links/etc. I've disagreed with this since the first time I noticed it, and this is a particularly strong case for putting some of the more accessible material where people will actually see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opabinia regalis (talk • contribs) 02:30, 1 June 2007

I don't want to open that Pandora's box in a FAC, but this is a very good point, perhaps we could raise it on the Style Guide talk page? TimVickers 00:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading the WP:GTL I see there is no standard order for these sections. I have put the refs last, to improve readability. TimVickers 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. Re: "honestly think the text is too dense with footnotes." For an article that attracts controversy, I think it's better to err on the side of having too many footnotes, with those references going to high quality, reliable sources as selected in this article. In my experience, doing this helps make the article more stable.

• Regarding "Further reading, ...", see WP:LAYOUT. I think it's best to be consistent with the guideline and how other articles are done. --Aude (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Formatted links. TimVickers 15:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support sorry for taking so long, but this article has gotten even better since I last read it. My one minor quibble on re-reading is in the last section; the first paragraph mentions work on artificial selection but then diverts into genetic algorithms and design, and the second paragraph gets back to artificial selection as if it hadn't been mentioned before. I think it would be more intuitive to mention domestication, selective breeding, and genetic engineering first, and then genetic algorithms and artificial life, which are at a greater level of 'abstraction'. Opabinia regalis 02:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good idea. Done. TimVickers 03:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are issues left to fix from the peer review, such as
  • the rooted tree of life. Is it just a glitch in the program you used that it has a root, Tim? I think you meant to produce an unrooted tree...

Good point, the tree in the Science paper is unrooted, and this is the data used to construct the tree. Indeed, what would you use to root the tree of life? Image corrected by removing root and merging two lines. TimVickers 15:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• also some new issues, some of which I have brought up before
  • the image illustrating range expansion in the gene flow section. Not the same thing at all!

OK, replaced with a more biological image, which also addresses a comment that rather few animals were shown in the article. TimVickers 15:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but still confusing! What seems to be shown in the image is seasonal migration, which may not lead to any gene flow at all, since animals tend to consistently return to the same breeding grounds. If you want a picture of an animal, this may be a better one:

Male lions leave the pride in which they are born and can move significant distances before they find a pride they can take over.

It's not perfect, since only one lion is shown, and they tend to group together to improve their chances of conquering a pride, but at least it is showing real geographic gene flow. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Image added. TimVickers 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • genetic drift image caption doesn't state how many replicates are being shown

Changed to "A simulation" to make it clear this is a single simulation of 20 alleles under 2 conditions. TimVickers 15:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I added "unlinked" to that caption, assuming this to be correct - anything else would be confusing to the novice! Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • it seems that there was a decision to move the history section to the back of the article. I have previously raised the question of whether the "Modern research" section really belongs in this article rather than Evolutionary biology. This problem is now compounded by the fact that not only do the ModRes and Hist sections overlap in chronology, ModRes precedes Hist within the article, which I'd say is counter-intuitive at best. As an example, the modern synthesis is mentioned once in each context.

Good point, Adam didn't like the History being at the front, perhaps if we move the "Modern research" section as the last section? TimVickers 15:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • ModRes seems to be a rather mixed bag that cannot hope to do justice to the diversity of fields within current evolutionary biology. A lot of the "sexy" topics would complain of non-inclusion: epigenetics, evo-devo etc. Where is palaeontology? Might this section have been intended as a sort of apologia along the lines of "oh btw, these are all the fields that didn't get mentioned in the article". Remember Haeckel's words, gentlemen - all politics, economics and other social sciences are merely applied biology! Are we going to include them all? I'm sure that an elegant solution to this problem is possible. The current one doesn't quite convince me.

Looking at the article on photons there is a similar section here, but more focussed on the present rather than giving an essentially historical view. This might be a solution, since, as you say, there does seem to be too much overlap with the "History" section. My preferred solution would be to merge this material into the history section, so that the hisory would come right up to the present day, rather than stopping in the 1950s. TimVickers 15:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried this solution. Does this address your concern? TimVickers 16:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • If physical anthropology redirects to "biological anthropology", why not use the latter in the first place?

Link changed. TimVickers 15:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • As a general remark, the "see also" section was removed because it was large and prone to growth. The editors are deluding themselves if they think they can stop growth. People will still insert garbage, and in the absence of a designated place to go, it will simply take new and surprising forms. Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia everyone can edit. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wha???

• Oppose I can't get past Image:Evolution is change 3.svg which conveys no substantial information, and looks like modern art. Isn't there a better diagram to introduce this important article? BenB4 06:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Support -- I like the navbox. BenB4 13:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentYou oppose because of a picture? I didn't realise that aesthetics were our top priority. My bad. •Jim62sch• 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively and at length on the talk page here and here. If you have alternative suggestions, please post them on the article's talk page. TimVickers 15:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to oppose on this basis but I agree that this image is confusing, and doesn't appear to depict evolution, since there is no process indicated. Without the caption there is no way evolution would occur to you upon seeing this picture, and I think it is nice if the top-right image conveys as much as possible even without any text. What I would have in mind as the ideal image would be those pictures where a monkey in a series of stages turns into a human (or a similar image with good science behind it). Christopher Parham (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this image is just confusing and weird. What about some king of "tree of life" style image with pictures of a few animals at the nodes, or a comparative image the two colours of the famous Peppered moth or something like that (although maybe that's more natural selection than "evolution" per se...) Tomgreeny 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comments
  • On the talk page, the FAQ should probably be at the top so that it's more noticeable. Though, I notice that Sandy usually puts the FAC template on the top of the talk page, so maybe the FAQ box can be listed second.
  • The evolution navbox should probably be at the top, above the graphic so readers can jump to whatever subarticle they want without needing to scroll down. --Aude (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm traveling and haven't been able to run through all the new noms to make sure everything's straight; that's one heck of a talk page, so anything you all can do to clean it up would be good :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot, with navbox problem

• I think switching the position of the navbox and the lead image would be helpful for readers. The navbox has a useful purpose to help people find information. The switch would also help with the navbox alignment problem I'm having (due to my screen resolution) - see right. Aligning templates in Wikipedia can be an annoyance, but it looks sloppy on my screen. If I resize my browser window, the navbox alignment problem goes away, but I have to scroll down to find the navbox. --Aude (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Put the current image in the template to solve the alignment issue. Alternative lead images are being discussed on the talk page. TimVickers 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually fixed this before Tim did. Reverted his changes. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Support The navbox looks good now, and the rest of the article is excellent. --Aude (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment

  I feel that "Human activities are probably the cause of the ongoing extinction event" is probably somewhat PoV. Whilst we're certainly responsible for a lot of extinction now, at the start of the event 10Ka, blaming Homo for everything is unsatisfactory. Verisimilus T 16:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Reworded to "Human activities are probably the primary cause..." TimVickers 16:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment There's always a certain background rate of extinction. That wouldn't qualify as an event. An "event" is a series of extinctions above and beyond the normal background rate over a short period of time, which is what we have now. So while it is not fair to blame all extinctions in the last 10Ma on humans, our species is almost unquestionably responsible for the current extinction event. Sheep81 16:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Er... ka, not Ma. Sheep81 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a little uncomfortable with it. "Primary cause" still leaves it sounding like humans initiated it; we're the primary reason that it's continuing now, but there may well have been an event even had humans disappeared along the way. A small point and not worth failing FA on, but could still use tidying up. Verisimilus T 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Reworded to "Human activities are now the primary cause of the ongoing extinction event..." and additional ref dealing with the Pleistocene megafauna extinctions added. TimVickers 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Verisimilus T 08:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This is the version of the article that the largest number of editors ever have been able to agree on. I have no doubt that this beats any other encyclopaedia out there by miles, and any remaining differences in point of view are inevitable in a subject that is still being researched. Thanks are due to many editors who have worked on this article over the years - recently Tim Vickers and Adam Cuerden, but also at one point Silence, who, iirc, started shaking up the article after it had been demoted from FA, and left lingering for some time. I also claim my small share of that pie. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article on a (regrettably) contentious topic. Nice to see it resurrected from the "former FA" bin - kudos all around. -- MarcoTolo 23:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. All that hard work paid off. It is far more readable. The "hard to understand/current reasearch topics" deleted stuff should be found a home elsewhere. It was good stuff, but this article reads better without it. WAS 4.250 00:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - That material was not deleted, it was either merged into the History section, or mentioned in the relevant section of the main article. TimVickers 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The article is far shorter. Epigenetic, complex iterations, lateral gene flow and other stuff has been removed, some before you started helping with this latest push. Probably most of it does exist elsewhere on wikipedia - I know the stuff I added that was deleted is. WAS 4.250 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Strong article, one of WP's best, which is surprising considering it's a hotbutton topic. FeloniousMonk 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Comments There are still a few things, mostly minor, to fix. I suppose this counts as a weak object, but I don't think it'll take long to fix - After all, the list I gave in the peer review, with much more major changes, was pretty much all dealt with.: Couple tiny points, but nothing worth objecting over. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC) My support is now unilateral. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Heredity section:
    • "Inheritance in organisms occurs through discrete traits, which are one particular characteristic of the organism." - That's a bit awkward, and it's a little hard to say traits are actually discrete. Now, it must be said that "gene" and "trait" and so on are some of the most woolly and ill-defined terms in biology, but I'd rather say something like "Inheritance in organisms occurs through genes, segments of DNA which have some distinct effect on the organism's traits."

This wording does not define "Trait", which we need to do. TimVickers 03:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Similarly "Most hereditary traits are inherited through Mendelian inheritance, where offspring have the trait of either one or the other of their parents, but not a mixture of the two traits." - I believe co-dominance is Mendelian, so that's confusing. And is that actually true? I mean, for multi-gene traits, it's false, and most traits are affected by more than one gene. We tend to simplify it for teaching Mendelian genetics, but we need to remember we're dealing with the simplest variety, not the most common.

Solved by removing the sentence, which was not needed. TimVickers 03:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Recombination:
    • Minor point, but we're italicising "linked" here. Should we be doing that for all new terms we're defining, or should we unitalicise it, or what?

Reworded

Er, is it? I mean in "In asexual organisms, genes will be inherited together, they are linked" Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I got it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • "However, the recombination rate is not very high, with approximately one recombination event per 1,000,000 base pairs occurring in humans." What does "not very high" mean in this context? I mean, per DNA, Human Chromosome #1 is 220 million base pairs long, so that's 220 crossing over events on it.

Removed "high/low" and just make statement of rate and result.

• • • We probably should mention that errors in crossing over can result in deletion or duplication of a section of DNA. It connects with the discussion in Mutation.

Added.

• • Mechanisms:< The opening paragraph could be a *little* simpler:
    • "There are three basic mechanisms of evolutionary change: natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow. Natural selection is the non-random selection for genes that favor survival and reproduction. genetic drift is the random sampling of a generation's genes during reproduction, causing random changes in the frequency of alleles, and gene flow is the transfer of genetic material within and between populations." This isn't bad, but might be a little difficult.

Split into 3 sentences, condensed a little.

• • • "...as well as the strength of selection" - Is this clear enough, coming before the description of natural selection?
  • Natural selection: Right. This is the third - fourth if you count the diagram next to it - explanation of natural selection (the others being the lead and the brief description in "Mechanisms" just above it), and that is not a problem in the least: It's a very important concept. It's very clever to explain it a different way this time. There is one thing I'm not sure of, though:
    • "Natural selection within a population can be subcategorized into three different modes: directional selection (a shift in the mean trait value over time);[48] disruptive selection (selection for extreme trait values on both ends, or "tails" of the distribution, often resulting in a bimodal distribution and selection against the mean); and stabilizing selection (also called purifying selection — selection against extreme trait values on both ends, and a decrease in variance around the mean.)" - Can we simplify the language a bit?

Ugh, that was knotty and gnarly. Reworded and split into separate sentences. TimVickers 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • "...and often results in a distribution with two peaks" - I think we need either an illustration or to try and phrase it so that it's not describing a graph. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, used height as a concrete example. TimVickers 03:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Genetic drift
    • This is picky, but is it necessary to say "allele" twelve times in the first paragraph?

Cut to 9 times. TimVickers 00:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Outcomes:
    • "However, in a few cases speciation events may involve the rapid development of genuinely novel characteristics, such as hybrid genomes and changes in development, and here micro- and macroevolution can be distinct." - Is this a very bad explanation of punctuated equilibrium? If not, what is this referring to?

I'm trying to condense reference 78 here and use speciation mechanisms that are discussed later as examples.

I can't follow the description then, I fear. I'll poke at the reference. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Replaced it with more convrete examples from Gould. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Do we have to discuss microevolution and macroevolution? They're such misunderstood terms, and we don't use them anywhere else in the article, so it's to some extent just teaching jargon, and jargon that has gone rather strongly out of favour.

My feeling is that if we don't include them and describe them accurately, people will continue to be confused by these terms and turn to less reliable sources. As they are really not that important, I didn't give them a section to themselves but just defined them at the beginning of the relevant section. TimVickers 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • The paragraph beginning "It is a common misconception that evolution always results in "progress"..." is a little awkward. It takes much longer than it should to explain its point. (Aside: Five references? Why on earth does it need five different references to explain a fairly basic point?)

Cut 2 refs. (you wouldn't believe how contentious this point was on the talk page). Also shortened slightly. TimVickers 01:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Adaptations
    • Seven uses of "adaptation" in the first paragraph seems a little much.

Cut to 5. TimVickers 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • "Other idiosyncratic anatomical features, such as the panda's "thumb"," - This is meaningless without explaining the thumb is a modified wrist bone, etc.

Reworded to be more concrete. TimVickers 01:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • I'm not sure this section is really as good as it could be. For instance, the Panda's thumb is made out of a wrist bone because the bear paw has adapted the finger bones in such a way that would make it very difficult to adapt one of them into a thumb, so an idiosyncratic wrist bone structure is used instead. Can this section's view of adaptation explain why this idiosyncratic structure was necessary? Also, it's not very well organised, and maybe a bit repetitious. It's not awful, but it could be better.
  • Co-evolution and cooperation:
    • Needs more explanation. For instance, "When the interaction is between species, the evolution of one species can exert a selective pressure on a second species. This second species can then adapt and, in turn, exert selective pressure on the first species. This mutually-reinforcing selection produces co-evolution.[100] In co-evolution, pairs of organisms such as mutualists, a pathogen and a host, or a predator and its prey undergo matched adaptations." is trying a little too hard to be generic, and is also a little over-wordy. Clarify, and work in the examples a bit better.
    • "An example is the production of tetrodotoxin in the rough-skinned newt and the evolution of tetrodotoxin resistance in the common garter snake." - Note this sentence nowhere says that the snake eats the newt. This makes the point being illustrated far more opaque than it needs to be.

Reworded to "An example is the production of tetrodotoxin in the rough-skinned newt and the evolution of tetrodotoxin resistance in its predator, the common garter snake."

Re-written lead to co-evolution. TimVickers 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • The explanation of Mycorrhiza and their symbiosis in plants again fails to explain the relationship very well. And what's the next line after this classic example of symbiosis? "However, not all interactions involve conflict."

Re-written explanation. TimVickers 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • "However, not all interactions involve conflict. One of the striking features of the natural world is that genes, cells, and organisms cooperate to form higher-order entities.[105][106] For example, cells in animals sacrifice their reproduction to increase the fitness of the entire organism. Here, cells respond to specific signals that instruct them to either grow or kill themselves. If cells ignore these signals their uncontrolled growth can cause cancer.[22] Organisms cooperate as this can provide benefits through kin selection and group selection, as well as direct, indirect and network reciprocity.[107]" - This awkward explanation of the cooperative origin of multicellularity needs taken out back and shot.

Taken out back, shot. Or, rather, moved to the taslk page: There's material in here that should *definitely* appear in "Evolution of life". Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Tried for a new version. TimVickers 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

New version looks good. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Speciation:
    • First paragraph debunks a creationist claim explicitly ("if humans evolved from monkeys, monkeys should no longer exist."). This is a pointless and rather indulgent diversion.

I've got this one. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • It's a bit odd to do the discussion of punctuated equilibirium as an aside.

There was a proposal to have a section on patterns in evolution, but this was rejected on the talk page. Since punct. evol. relates to evolutionary chage occurring specifically with speciation, I thought this was the next best place.

Well, better than nothing.

• • • "Here, around the mine, etc." is awkward writing. Try "There is etc. around the mine"

Done

• • • "as well as character displacement, which causes two species to become more distinct" - saying what something causes is not the same as saying what something is. It's better to say what it is when introducing a term.

Done

• • • Perhaps sympatric speciation would benefit from some of the work in Talk:Evolution/Gene flow? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Never knew that was there! TimVickers 16:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's my rewrite of gene flow that was cut down pretty heavily to make the final product. Some of the illustrations could be useful.

• • • "as in cabbage" / "as in wheat" - I'm not sure the cabbage one is entirely justified, as cabbage is one species, brassica oleracea. It would be nice to have a little more on wheat. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-cabbage prejudice is sadly prevalent, but add more on wheat if this will make you happy. TimVickers 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit. You may want to re-edit. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Extinction:
    • "The intermittent mass extinctions are also important, but instead of acting as a selective force they drastically reduce diversity in a non-specific manner and may therefore promote a burst of adaptive radiation and speciation in survivor" - Adaptive radiation is not explained.

Reworded to "...promote a burst of rapid evolution and speciation in survivors."

• • Origin of life
    • "Self-catalytic" and "protocells" would do well to be explained.

Reworded.

• • Common descent:
    • "All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool" - I'm not sure ancestral gene pool applies to the last common ancestor. It's more of the ancestors after life began to diverge, isn't it?

OK, OK, I'll cut the "gene pool" :)

• • • Why a deviation about The Origin of Species?

Good point, reworded to "The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms."

• • • "prokeryotes" should be "prokaryotes"

Done

• • Evolution of life
    • "Evolution did not produce rapid changes in morphology," - What does this mean in the context of prokaryotes and protista? Because there's certainly many and diverse differences. Indeed, can we actually say anything of the kind from indistinct microfossils?

Well, as we don't see any major changes in the outward appearance of the fossils we have, this is all we can really say. There might have been major internal changes, but this wouldn't show in the fossil record. TimVickers 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we really have the information to say anything, then?

• • • Ordering is unclear. The origin of eukaryotes must come before the origin of multicellular eukaryotes.

Reworded.

I wasn't entirely clear what I was referring to, but I got it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • "ancient bacteria being engulfed by the ancestors of eukaryotic cells" - Just to check, is this the only theory? Because thought there was also a colonial theory.

The problem here is that I don't distinguish between the evolution of eukaryotes and the evolution of multicellularity. Reworded to deal with this. TimVickers 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Don't use "mya", that's pointless jargon.

Cut.

• • • "However, despite this apparent progression," - it's only an apparent progression because it's being written that way. I mean, really, "Amphibians first appeared around 300 mya, followed by early amniotes, then mammals around 200 mya and birds around 100 mya (both from "reptile"-like lineages). The human genus arose around 2 mya, with the earliest anatomically-modern humans developing in Africa 100–200 thousand years ago" - there's no reason to describe it that way (with humans at the top, no less), unless you want to make a progressive statement. Maybe if you threw in a few other groups to show other phyla were also evolving at the same time, and skipped the Homo and human...

Good suggestion. Minor genus deleted. TimVickers 18:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That works well! Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • "However, what changes we can gather from the limited fossil record were extremely slow." - Until when? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • History of evolutionary thought
    • Not sure I like the combination of the fields of study with this. It makes the fields of study impossible to find in the ToC.

New arrangement. TimVickers 18:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that'll give you something to work on. And probably me too. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak object This has come a long way. Kudos to all for the hard work. I do have a few minor comments and one big concern.
  • Lead: occurs because organisms with these advantageous traits produce more offspring I would add "more successful offspring".

Reworded to "This occurs because organisms with these advantageous traits produce pass more copies of the traits on to the next generation."

• • Mutation:
    • One advantage of gene duplication is that overlapping or redundant function in multiple copies of genes allows alleles to be retained that would otherwise have deleterious effects, thus increasing genetic diversity Reword "deleterious effects" into something more understandable without a dictionary.

Replaced with "harmful"

• • • Mobile genetic elements, transposons, make up a major fraction of the genomes of plants and animals and may have been important in the evolution of genomes "Mobile genetic elements" is supposed to define transposons I think. However the phrase is not very meaningful. It would be better to let people follow link if you cannot describe in a more understandable fashion. "A major fraction of genomes" is very vague and meaningless. BTW I think you should have introduced "genome" in the heridty section. The article jumps from discussing genotype to genome and I don't think most readers will pick up the difference on their own. "may have been important in the evolution of genomes" The article never again touches on the evolution of genomes. This needs to link to an appropriate article on the subject or else be cut out. Note:'Down in "Natural selection"; transposons are simply defined as "genes".

Reworded to "Sequences of DNA that can move about the genome, such as transposons,..."

Added link to genome in correct part of hereditary section "Inherited traits are controlled by genes and the complete set of genes within an organism's genome is called its genotype"

• • • "Another effect of these mobile DNA sequences is that when they move within a genome they can mutate or delete existing genes and thereby produce evolutionary change and diversity" They really "produce evolutionary change" whenever they mutate or delete a gene? I think that is a bit too strong of a statement.

Evolutionary change under the broad definition we use in this article is any change in genetic material, this does fit the definition. TimVickers 19:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the broad definition we are using is any change in heritable genetic material in a populaltion . . . Of course most people will read it correctly from the context it is just too strong of a statement for my taste.--BirgitteSB 23:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reworded to "...they can mutate or delete existing genes and thereby produce genetic diversity." TimVickers 03:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Recombination: In addition, recombination can produce individuals with new and advantageous gene combinations and, due to errors in crossing over, also duplicate genes, allowing the copy to evolve new functions. When alleles cannot be separated by recombination, such as in mammalian Y chromosomes, deleterious mutations accumulate. These positive effects of recombination are balanced by the fact that it can cause mutations such as chromosomal deletions and may also separate gene combinations that have been successful in previous generations I think it would be hard to write these ideas less clearly than above. Laymen's terms: "Recombination is benificial because it increases the diversity of the genome which leads to variations which can be adapted by the popluation as whole when they are useful. Recombination is problamatic because it can introduce genetic diseases to the population by messing up parts of the genome which have worked well in past generations." The key to get across is the difference bewteen sexual and asexual organisms is recognizable as the greater diversity and the higher incidence of genetic diseases within sexual populations. Try to explain hows of recombination in the first paragraph and don't use terms like "the copy" and "deleterious" (someone writing this article realy liked that word).

Unfortunately, my writing style occasionally has deleterious effects on comprehensibility. :) Tried for a clear and less convoluted rewrite. TimVickers 03:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Big concernAdaption: I have never been happy with this section. The lead sentance on this: Over very long periods of time, adaptations are produced by a combination of the continuous production of small, random changes in traits, followed by natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment is acutually slighty better explantion than the beginning of the section. Exaptation is still a major problem for me. I don't understand what is left that qualifies as an adaption if exaptations are not adaptations. The reference for that sentence is a paper on evolutionary psychology which is not exactly a generalized discussion of evolution. I have a real problem with the section saying penguin flippers are not an adaption and bat wings are. I think this is an internal contradiction that must be fixed. I would also love to see just one example in this section of an adaption which is not focused on a physical trait.

Looking out the window, I saw a squirrel running along my phone line - a behavioural exaptation. Used this as an example! TimVickers 16:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Support exaptation discussion is no longer an internal contradiction!--BirgitteSB 17:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Co-evolution: The co-operation side needs to have the language strengthened. If a reader does not know what a "mutualist" is, the fact that example includes suppressing the plants immune system and directly follows a predation prey example could lead to them not realizing co-operation is being discussed.

Rewritten. TimVickers 03:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Speciation: I really would like to see that image altered to use the same terms as the text. Having to translate habitat to niche, formation of polyploid species to genetic polymorphism, etc is going to lose some readers.

Done. Thanks to User:Fvasconcellos. TimVickers 16:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Extinction:This could produce "species selection" as an additional level of natural selection This level was already mentioned in the natural selection section so it cannot be said to be additional or treated as a new revelation.

Rewritten. TimVickers 03:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• • General tightness: Throughout the article I feel opportunities are missed to refer back to the ideas previously discussed in the terms that were originally used. Fixing that would really improve the article. Tightness is what makes the speciation section so good; it constantly describes the information in terms of natural selection, genetic drift, etc. A few examples. These multicellular forms of life were the eukaryotes and came from ancient bacteria being engulfed by the ancestors of eukaryotic cells, which allowed endosymbiotic associations between the bacteria and the host cell This was discussed as co-evolution or co-operation previously not symbiotic association. The intermittent mass extinctions are also important, but instead of acting as a selective force they drastically reduce diversity in a non-specific manner and may therefore promote a burst of adaptive radiation and speciation in survivors Can we describe this in terms of what was said in the speciation section? Polyploids also have more genetic diversity, which allows them to resist the effects of inbreeding "Effects of inbreeding" is basically the negative side of "Recombination" discussed earlier using new terms.

Reworded the examples you found. Will search for others. TimVickers 04:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• • See below: If we have to have these can they link to the correct subsection?--BirgitteSB 15:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. TimVickers 04:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment 2 issues - I agree about the odd image with the yellow and red boxes but concede it is possibly the most global or generic way to get the point across. I thought may have been a little better with some critter in it but not sure either way. However my main concern was I recalled a few years ago that fossil evidence seemed to show a stepwise or staged development in species not gradual evolution per se. It is a long article but couldn't see this mentioned apart from under peripatric speciation. is it prominent enough? cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As this is still an important theory, I've split this out as a separate paragraph in the speciation section. TimVickers 21:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - 'nuff said.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: " Large chromosomal rearrangements do not necessarily change gene function, but can result in reproductive isolation. An example of chromosomal rearrangements is the fusion of two chromosomes in the Homo genus that produced human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the chimpanzee lineage, and chimpanzees retain two separate chromosomes. However, chromosomal rearrangements do not appear to have driven the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineages." - Could we choose an example where it actually did drive speciation? Wallabies or something? Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence there isn't a good summary of the reference, this is closer to the last reference in content. Clarified by cutting the second sentence. I don't know of any examples, this idea may have gone out of favour - can you find a good one? TimVickers 04:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely remeber something about it driving wallaby speciation, but the first few references I found were journals I ddn't have access to. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've rearranged it a bit. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Right now, I think this is a great article. However, on my browser, the article takes an inordinate amount of time to load. It is by far the only article on Wikipedia with which I experience this particular problem. I want to make further comments about the article including my strong support. But I wanted to start with that. Orangemarlin 03:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

With some condensation, cutting two unnecessary refs and the removal of the paragraph below, the size of the article is now under 100 kb. TimVickers 03:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

*Object I hate to do it because most of this article is absolutely superb but the history of evolutionary thought section has a real problem with its last paragraph:

Physical anthropology emerged in the late 19th century from physiology, the study of human osteology, and the fossils of other hominids.[157] At that time, anthropologists were unsure if this data supported evolution, because skeletal remains revealed temporal and spatial variation among hominids, but Darwin had not explained the mechanisms that produced variation. However, with the rise of the modern synthesis, evolution became the conceptual framework for physical anthropology.[157] In addition to studying fossils, these scientists began to population genetics in humans, creating the field of biological anthropology.

To begin with I assume it shold be "began to apply population genetics to humans", but much more fundamentally I can't figure out quite what the rest of the paragraph is saying. The main problem with the study of human evolution in the 19th century was the lack of any useful hominid fossils. Until the discovery of Java Man in 1891 all they had were modern man and Neanderthals (a near contemporary of modern man). The first African hominid fossil would not be found until 1924. I can understand why you want a paragraph on thinking about human evolution, but I think you need to make it clearer or cut it.Rusty Cashman 22:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, as we don't discuss human evolution in the History of life section, I don't see the need to discuss this specialised subject in the section on the history of evolutionary thought in general. I've cut it. TimVickers 22:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Support I had one other minor issue with the mutation section but I just fixed it. An encyclopedia article on a topic as complicated as evolution can never be more than an overview, but this is an excellent one that gives concise yet informative summaries of difficult technical issues such as natural selection, mutation and genetic drift. Nice work. Rusty Cashman 06:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — I haven't read the entire article, but I had a few quibbles with the lead section:

• The mid-section of this sentence seems improper: "This occurs because organisms with these advantageous traits produce pass more copies of the traits on to the next generation"

Typo, fixed.

• Perhaps I'm being dense, but it seem like this sentence could be clearer: "...genetic drift produces random changes in the traits of a population and is caused by the fact that there is an element of chance in which organisms in a population successfully reproduce." It seems to be telling me that reproduction itself is the root cause of genetic drift, rather than mutations. Does it instead want to tell me that some random changes can occur that will still allow successful reproduction?

Genetic drift is indeed the product of reproduction. It would still occur in the complete abscence of mutation.

Perhaps then my misunderstand is from the two possible interpretations of "in which"? Is it referring to the randomality of the possible pairings, some combinations of which result in outliers? Or just changes introduced during a random subset of all the reproductions? I guess I could read ahead in the article and find out, but really I shouldn't need to (per WP:Lead section.) — RJH (talk)

Changed to "...genetic drift produces random changes in which traits are most common in a population, and is caused by the fact that there is an element of chance in which organisms succeed in reproducing." TimVickers 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To me the "in which" can mean a subset of the organisms, or it could be in use as a conjunction. For example,"...there is an element of chance in which of the organisms succeed in reproducing...," eliminates the ambiguity. — RJH (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Done. TimVickers 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• "...separated into different populations ... becoming two separate new species." Two or more perhaps?

Changed to "... becoming separate new species." TimVickers 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Length of article and citations is understandable given the amount of incredulity in some parts of the world. A minor issue is the use of two portraits sandwiching text in the history section. Shyamal 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved Mendel down next to his paragraph. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - It's finally good enough, let's hope it can maintain some stability. Number and type of pictures is good, the organization is logical and it's clear for a non-scientific audience. I'd love to give it the armour of a stable version, I suppose in the mean time, we'll fight the good fight. Cheers. pschemp | talk 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. What a beautiful article! Kudos to all involved (Adam, Quadzilla, MarcoTolo, Samsara, Verisimilus, The Rest, and especially Tim, who put in a sickening amount of work). I particularly think the images illustrate the topic clearly, particularly now that the "Tetris" image has been removed. The text seems accessible to the average reader. The reference section appears to be mostly from peer-reviewed journals and other scholarly sources. The problems I had with the article during its peer review all seem to have been fixed. I did correct one error I found: Tarbosaurus isn't a species, it's a genus. Dinosaurs are known mostly by their generic (genus-level) names (the only major exception is T. rex).

You folks have done a wonderful job on this article. Once it becomes Featured, don't let it degrade again! Firsfron of Ronchester 07:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The wording isn't clear, but I don't think the caption was referring to Tarbosaurus when it said "The non-avian dinosaur species died in a mass extinction" but rather meant something like "All non-avian dinosaurs died out in a mass extinction." For one thing, Tarbosaurus is early Maastrictian so it didn't die out in a mass extinction. I've changed the caption for clarity. Sheep81 08:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's how I read it. New phrasing seems good and much clearer. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The new phrasing is much better, as then it's clear the article isn't referring to Tarbosaurus as a species. I had assumed that it was, in part because the wording was confusing, and partly because during peer review I noticed the same problem with Archaeopteryx. But that's no longer in the article. So, looks good to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support, amazing accomplishment, and in only four months. I'm awed that you all were able to keep the article size within guidelines, and clear out EL and See also, but not surprised at the TimVickers quality of referencing. (Tim, what took you so long? Note, if re-promoted, remember to re-categorize at WP:FFA to bottom of page.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I remember this article at FAR - TimVickers seems like a wizkid turning this around. I don't relish Raul's job of reading this specific FAC though given all the comments.. LuciferMorgan 08:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support I'm very pleased with how the revision of this article has gone. I made a series of suggestions for improvements that TimVickers (especially) and Adam Cuerden carefully reviewed and acted on (or didn't act on in the case of my less-than-bright suggestions). One is always bound to have remaining quibbles with an article of this length, but mine are just that, quibbles. Well done! --Plumbago 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Detailed, well-illustrated, well-maintained. --Itub 18:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is Wonderful Life really a good introductory text to evolution? It's been years since I read it, but I don't recall it being particularly educational and it obviously spends a great deal of time on the Burgess shale rather than general principles. If I was to include a Gould text, I'd probably use Full House, which is more accessible and possibly more on-target for what we're going for. Given Gould's status among modern evolutionary theorists, I don't know if having two of his texts in the list would represent current theory. Just a quibble. 64.235.97.146 20:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would add to that discussion the question whether anyone has read Charlesworth and Charlesworth, Evolution: A Very Short Introduction. At 168 pages, it may or may not be the shortest one out there from such high-calibre authors. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not read that, Wonderful life is intended not as in introduction to evolution, which is covered in the first two books, but as an introduction to the material covered in the "Evolutionary History of Life" section. It is rather specific though, are there any more general books for the non-specialist reader that cover this material? TimVickers 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Steve Jones' Almost Like A Whale has 519 pages, Blind Watchmaker 368 pp., Wonderful Life 352, and Endless Forms Most Beautiful 288 pp. I haven't looked at all the ones in Introduction to evolution, but it strikes me that the Charlesworth contribution might be the only one to cover it all in such short space (Almost Like A Whale is about speciation, Wonderful Life about fossils, Endless Forms about Evo-Devo, and Blind Watchmaker (iirc) mostly about simulations). Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What about "Andrew H. Knoll Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Evolution on Earth.? Anybody read it? TimVickers 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Pass. Sorry. Still 304 pages as per amazon. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Samsara - The Blind Watchmaker includes two sets of simulations (evolving a phrase from Shakespeare; Dawkins' evo-devo biomorphs model), but is far from dominated by them. They illustrate a single chapter (of 11) entitled "Accumulating Small Change". Other chapters cover topics such as adaptationism, punk-eek, sexual selection, other evolutionary models, cladistics and taxonomy. I've not read it, but I thought Almost Like A Whale was intended to "update" Origin, so presumably isn't just about speciation? Regarding Wonderful Life, Tim is right, it's not supposed to be an intro to evolutionary theory, but surely Gould has something more general in his canon? I've only read WL and his essays. Anyway, it sounds like we should add Evolution: A Very Short Introduction, but we should certainly retain others (not least those with articles about them). Length isn't everything (so I'm told). Cheers, --Plumbago 07:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Added. TimVickers 15:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've copy-edited the lead, which shows that a lot of work remains to be done. I'll continue to go through what will be an excellent article, because I'm keen to see the topic given the best airing possible. Sorry, there's a typo in my edits, I see. Is it in US or Br Eng? It's hard to find distinguishing features, so I guessed US (my favoring). Tony 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It is US English. TimVickers 03:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edit, Tony. TimVickers 13:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The new version states Natural selection is a process that causes helpful heritable traits for survival and reproduction... While the version from yesterday said Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction... I'm not sure this new version is as clear, because when you start stringing adjectives together, the reader can get lost. Some grammarians recommend avoiding adjective strings, when possible. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I've replaced the older version of this sentence, which was much more clear. TimVickers 17:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Has matured as an article under the hands of many competent editors. Perhaps one of the most challenging topics to summarize at an encylopedic level. Highly deserving of Featured status.--Random Replicator 02:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose First of all I do not believe in evolution, second of all it will offend many. 76.183.213.20 05:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, irrelevant, second of all, irrelevant. Orangemarlin 06:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your interest. However, this process aims to assess if an article meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, objections that are not actionable or based on these criteria are lkely to be ignored. TimVickers 13:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support I think the demotion from FA status was the best thing to happen to this article. It was completely rewritten and cleaned up. The references are easy to read, and the doi or pubmed links make it easy to read the abstracts, and the writing is clear and engaging. It hits the NPOV just perfectly. And the reason I showed up here 7 months ago was to get information about evolution. I've been addicted ever since. Those many editors who have worked on this article should all be commended. But the references are the best part!!!! Orangemarlin 06:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's hope it can stay NPOV ... for the record, a link to the version I brought to FAR five months ago. Tim et al have done a great job of turning the article around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In the mechanisms section it states, "improve capacity survival and reproduction." I'm not sure what that means. Is "capacity survival" terminology that needs to be defined? Orangemarlin 06:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Typo: should've been "capacity for survival."

• Comment Is this true: Evolution influences every aspect of the form and behavior of organisms? I daresay that certain antisocial personality disorders probably do not have an evolutionary or genetic component (although it can be debated). Besides in a very well written article, the use of absolutes in this sentence is very obvious. Orangemarlin 06:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You're reading that kind of oddly... Behaviour and form are both evolvable, and all aspects of them potentially are. For instance, Huxley sets out a good case for key components of the ability to form societies (sympathy, empathy, etc) being evolvable, since societies help survival, and stronger societies help survival all the more. The key word, though, is "influences", though. The capacity for the disorder may exist, but it's not common, and that's probably due to evolution per Huxley. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I used the word "influences" rather than the word "determines" to try to avoid this type of confusion. As personality does have a genetic component, evolution will "influence" personality. For a simple example, look at pit-bull terriers which have been selected for aggressive personalities. Even for more "emergent" behaviours, for example musical appreciation in people, the fact that evolution has provided us with large brains and a social nature must have some influence on this aspect of our personality. So really, in the broadest sense, I think this is true. TimVickers 13:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll go along with this, but it sounds so absolutist. Sorry Adam, that's how I'm reading it. But let's be honest here, I read that article twice, and found maybe three things that I didn't like. It's not like I'm beating up anyone here.  :) Orangemarlin 01:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work has made this article one of the encyclopedia's very best. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 05:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.