Talk:Hybrid (biology)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: William Harris (talk · contribs) 10:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Chiswick Chap, thank-you for nominating this article as a GAC and I will be reviewing it. My "Letters of Engagement" include two parts. The template below will contain those issues that need to be addressed as part of WP:POL (but with some flexibility), and the section below titled OTHER COMMENTS will contain suggestions for your consideration aimed at joint article improvement. If you are happy with this please let me know. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. Sounds good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Lead, first paragraph, last sentence: it is a little inelegant, perhaps rephrasing might help? Done.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Use of "heterosis or hybrid vigour" in the lead paragraph; could we have just the simpler "hybrid vigour"? (You might also consider it for the section titled Heterosis - it is the correct term but it is not the one people will remember a week after reading the article.) Done. This sentence may be too complex for the lead and might be removed altogether without compromising the lead?: "Doubling the number of chromosomes to create polyploids is important in hybrid speciation, because homoploid hybrids (with the same number of chromosomes as the parent species) are rarely fertile; the polyploid hybrids are allopolyploids." Done. Left a note just in case. First occurrence of "alleles" to be linked and second occurrence to be unlinked, plus others later on in the text. Done - best to have comments of any length outside the table.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Reviewed and assessed as being provided.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article "Mitochondrial pseudogenes suggest repeated inter-species hybridization in hominid evolution" has not been peer-reviewed and should be removed. Gone.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Scan with earwig delivers a response of "3.8% Violation Unlikely".
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Reviewed based on a search of the term "Biological hybridization" in Google Books. In relevant books, the chapter topics reflect the main aspects covered in this article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Reviewed and assessed as focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Reviewed and assessed as neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	"View History" log reviewed and assessed as being stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Reviewed and assessed as valid. One non-compliant image has recently been removed from the article.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Reviewed and assessed as relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	Achieved Good Article standard.

Other comments

You might consider WP:OVERLINK and reduce the number of common English words that have been hyper-linked in the lead paragraphs and the lead pix. Certainly the key or unusual (scientific) terms need to be linked. (We both know that the others will come along later and start dropping in a few links.)

Done. I aim for a link in each of lead, text, and image. Very occasionally a further link may be useful when widely separated.

There is probably no need to cite in the lead pix as I don't believe the statement is contentious.

Done.

Etymology: hybrida - what does the word mean in Latin? The cited Oxford Dictionaries link does not go to the word and it may need relinking.

Replaced ref, OED is basically messing users about for financial reasons.

Genetics: There may be a benefit in briefly describing what an allele does rather than depending on the link. Some simple example e.g. coat colour in mammals - allele for brown can be expressed as light tan or chocolate (or similar very simple example).

Done.

This paragraph may benefit from restructuring as follows: "Hybridization is greatly influenced by human impact on the environment,[48] such as habitat fragmentation and introduced species.[49] Humans have introduced species worldwide to environments for a long time, both intentionally such as establishing a population to be used as a biological control, and unintentionally such as accidental escapes of individuals out of agriculture. This causes drastic global effects on various populations, including through hybridization.[13][50] This increases the challenges in managing certain populations that are experiencing introgressive hybridization, and is a focus of conservation genetics." The correct citing would need to follow the last sentence.

Done.

"three semi-distinct categories dealing with anthropogenic hybridization: hybridization without introgression, hybridization with widespread introgression, and hybrid swarm". These are important concepts, and you might consider describing each with a sentence or two. A new paragraph would then be made beginning from "Conservationists disagree..."

Done.

Under the section "Management", second paragraph, "Conservationists disagree...." There may be benefit in some reduction of the word "it" in this paragraph, I find the meaning slightly hard to follow. (Being an encyc. we can get away with being over-specific.)

Reworded.

"only four to six generations older than the Oase individual" - what Oase individual?

Reworded.