Talk:Species/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shyamal (talk · contribs) 08:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a critically important article and needs far more eyes and expertise than any average GA review. In the hope that more eyes and heads can be recruited, there is a reminder at WT:TOL. I hope to look through the literature in the coming days/weeks. Shyamal (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you for taking this on. May I remind you, however, that whatever the size and importance of a topic, there is only one GA process, which is intentionally simple and is intended to be completed "in about seven days", while the article is required to cover "the main points". I do hope we will keep strictly to this wise policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe reviews are open to comment by multiple reviewers and I hope you are not objecting to that. I do not think the time constraint is a strict one. If no other reviewers add their comment then the timeline will be based on how responses go to just my comments. We are not going to wait specifically for anyone. I am adding a placeholder structure for discussion assuming that others will proffer their review comments. I think in the end we need to IAR and agree that the idea here is to produce a "good article" - one, in this case, that works across or covers the situations in all domains and kingdoms. Shyamal (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That's fine as far as it goes, though in my view IAR is an empty phrase, and the 7 days, mainly one reviewer guideline is important. We have a 30 days, multi-reviewer process already: it is called FAC, and that would definitely be out of order here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Structure

Comments here are for examining the structure of the article - are the sections appropriate and in proper sequence. Are there any missing pieces.

• Naming seems to be a section that stands for what would perhaps formally be taxonomy but by not using a specific term it begs having to cover and explain the meanings of taxonomy and systematics and their role in defining species. I would think that the circumscription needs coverage here and terms like strict sense, broad sense etc. be especially covered in the context of the species delineation problem (something that a separate article may cover in a very different way). Shyamal (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Called it Taxonomy and naming, as we also cover codes and common names which name species without defining them. Added a paragraph on senses.

Your "separate article" is I think the Species problem article, which provides History, Philosophical aspects, and Quotations.

• The practical implications of species - their definition, applications, and problems caused may be useful to include as a separate section. This could include conservation debates, legal problems and so on.

Added.

I added the spotted owl case. Shyamal (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• We probably need an introduction to quasispecies somewhere and an introduction to the situation in viruses. Shyamal (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sections

Comments here are specific to content in the sections

Lead

Perhaps this needs to be examined last but there are some things that can be addressed.

• noting species as "units of biodiversity" may be useful.

Done.

• the mention of horizontal gene transfer seems to be a rather big leap from the previous sentence.

Led in with sentence about 20th century.

I have added more about more typical processes. Please see if they are appropriate Shyamal (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, have copy-edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• the fundamental problem of defining species can be clearly stated up front as being from the nature of it not being fixed as believed in Linnaeus' time.

Done.

• we could also note that most people look for species definitions that allow for practical applications despite the fundamental issues involved which are accepted

Done.

• problems with asexual organisms, those that evolve through hybridization, polyploidy and rapid mutation can also be noted.

Done.

History

• " John Ray (1686), an English naturalist, was the first to give a biological definition of the term "species", as follows:" - something like "attempt" might reduce any likelihood of misunderstandings that are possible with the use of "give".

Done.

• The section heading "Species that could change" could be interpreted as being a statement that some species can change while others are fixed.

Renamed.

Naming

• The section name seems a bit troublesome - more comments above.

Renamed.

• I think we could include the basic principle that nomenclatural codes such as the ICZN Code do not provide ways to define species and that they only provide rules and guidelines for the naming of proposed species

Added 'that are already defined'.

Attempts at definition

• I am unable to find any reliable sources for the supposed "Vavilovian species concept". The cited sources do not seem to me to fit the bill to me it looks like a problem in translation. Shyamal (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed for now. If we can find sources we can try again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I have found what must be the source used for the VSC material: "Vavilov's Species Concept and the Evolution of Variation" by Valentin Krassilov, 1988. I'm neither sure it's a reliable source, nor what exactly the VSC really is. Answers on a postcard, please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Useful source but hard to make out relevance when not reviewed in a broader perspective. Shyamal (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• We do not mention "chronospecies" which are important for paleontologists. Shyamal (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I am unable to see how "Evolutionary species" differ from phylogenetic species - statements like "A species that gives rise to another species is a paraphyletic species" seem to be downright either in error or dubious. Shyamal (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is what Claridge et al. has on ESC - "an entity composed of organisms which maintains its identity from other such entities through time and over space, and which has its own independent evolutionary fate and historical tendencies" - originally proposed by Simpson and clarified by Wiley and Mayden 1997. Shyamal (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Used this exact wording, and mentioned Simpson, Hennig; summarised Wiley/Mayden.

• Would be good to check the definitions of all the species concepts against Zachos, Claridge et al. or other major sources on species concepts. Shyamal (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you are getting at here. They are all reliably sourced, often to multiple sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not that they are outright unreliable - some of the concepts have been combined, there are too many to mention completely and it would be good to give the sources a careful check to decide if these are the most significant and whether they are defined and grouped appropriately. Shyamal (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll merge the evol/phylo sections which are stated to be in some opinions "identical" - I'm happy to go further, but to minimise the risk of being accused of WP:Synth I'd prefer it if you suggested what should be merged or whatever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me know if you want any of the sources - large files but I can put them on a fileshare. Shyamal (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That depends on what you want me to do, I'm basically happy with the text as it is, as it covers the key concepts including Wilkins's groupings of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I certainly do not want to order you to do anything. I was only acting as a peer and looking over contents in the light of sources one would go to as say, a university-level researcher. Shyamal (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Referencing

Comments here are for evaluating sources and suggesting other major sources that need to be included.

• References that I will be looking up include:
  • For bacteria and archaea - Rosselló-Móra, Ramon; Amann, Rudolf (2015). "Past and future species definitions for Bacteria and Archaea" (PDF). Systematic and Applied Microbiology. 38 (4): 209. doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2015.02.001. PMID 25747618.
  • viruses Van Regenmortel, Marc H.V (2010). "Logical puzzles and scientific controversies: The nature of species, viruses and living organisms". Systematic and Applied Microbiology. 33 (1): 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2009.11.001. PMID 20005655.
    • Van Regenmortel, M.H.V (2003). "Viruses are real, virus species are man-made, taxonomic constructions". Archives of Virology. 148 (12): 2481–8. doi:10.1007/s00705-003-0246-y. PMID 14648301.
  • clonal species including fungi Taylor, J. W; Turner, E; Townsend, J. P; Dettman, J. R; Jacobson, D (2006). "Eukaryotic microbes, species recognition and the geographic limits of species: Examples from the kingdom Fungi". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 361 (1475): 1947. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1923.
    • Gevers, Dirk; Cohan, Frederick M; Lawrence, Jeffrey G; Spratt, Brian G; Coenye, Tom; Feil, Edward J; Stackebrandt, Erko; De Peer, Yves Van; Vandamme, Peter; Thompson, Fabiano L; Swings, Jean (2005). "Opinion: Re-evaluating prokaryotic species". Nature Reviews Microbiology. 3 (9): 733. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1236. PMID 16138101.
• Impacts of definitions - Agapow, Paul‐Michael; Bininda‐Emonds, Olaf R P; Crandall, Keith A; Gittleman, John L; Mace, Georgina M; Marshall, Jonathon C; Purvis, Andy (2004). "The Impact of Species Concept on Biodiversity Studies" (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology. 79 (2): 161–179.

Included. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Closing comments

I think as far as GA criteria go - the article passes the requirements. There have not been any other non-reviewer comments that indicate any issues with coverage of the article. My offer to help with access to sources remains. Shyamal (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: