Talk:Human evolutionary developmental biology

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hmacintyre.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The references are somewhat of a mess. Ad-hoc simulation of Harvard-style citations, duplicated citations, inconsistent position of references versus the period, lacking full stops, often not specifying the page. The dates in parenthesis also do not always match the date of the book or journal issue. Not helping, author names are often mispelled. I started fixing a few but there's more work needed. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate — 06:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All true. Also, the grammar, tone and phrasing of the whole article need rework. Then it will need some attention to making it accessible to the general public. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:PaleoNeonate: We should (as I noted in the cleanup tag) only be using ONE style of referencing in the text, and that should clearly be numbered bluelinks. We should not have the text also sprinkled with oldstyle Harvard references, though these can freely be used within sfn citations provided they have page numbers - without those, they do two things: they sometimes (don't understand what's going on there, maybe it was a server glitch) appear in the text as words rather than as superscript numbers; and they fail to provide verifiability, as they point to entire books rather than specific page ranges. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. — Paleo Neonate — 07:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing is now better, although there's some issue with the reference #19 (broken Google Schoolar link it seems). An unfortunate thing is that the pages were not always properly noted (where there were duplicate references, the same page range was in all), it's something that I could not fix without reading the references. I'm done for tonight, I hope you didn't experience edit conflicts (I had none). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate — 07:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for asking. The referencing is indeed better, as is the grammar. Now that the text is readable, I perceive that it doesn't say very much at all about Human evolutionary developmental biology, which, er, is the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some of it (i.e. "For example, Kieran McNulty covers the potential utilities and constraints of using incomplete fossil taxa to examine longitudinal development in Australopithecus africanis.") but I agree that it's lacking. — Paleo Neonate — 14:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very little. What did McNulty actually find out about A. africanus? Or anything else? We aren't told, frankly. AfD might be a bit drastic but the article would benefit from having some content. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an incomplete tag for now, feel free to remove it if you consider it inappropriate. — Paleo Neonate — 14:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems right to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap Thanks for the link. Although that was among my search results, I wasn't sure (and still am not) if that's the right one though, it only mentions it I think. — Paleo Neonate — 11:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading on Evo-Devo lately, being less familiar with it than with the Modern Synthesis, but it's possible that I could improve this article eventually. Biology is an amateur interest for me and this article is still on my TODO improvements list, —Paleo Neonate – 12:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]