Talk:Evolutionary developmental biology

Evolutionary developmental biology is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by Chiswick Chap at 16:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Evolutionary biology C‑class High‑importance

	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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

Lead is short

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead is to contain an overview of the article content. The lead in this article is too short. --Ettrig (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. I had been waiting until the main sections were written before attempting to summarize them. I have added a summary now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History in non-history chapter

The article has a history chapter that is a large percentage of the article. Historical content, like

Many of these organisms share the same structural genes for body-building proteins like collagen and enzymes, but biologists had expected that each group of animals would have its own rules of development. The surprise of evo-devo is that the shaping of bodies is controlled by a rather small percentage of genes, and that these regulatory genes are ancient, shared by all animals.

and

The puzzle of how embryonic development was controlled began to be solved using the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism. The step-by-step control of its embryogenesis was visualized by attaching fluorescent dyes of different colours to specific types of protein made by genes expressed in the embryo. A dye such as green fluorescent protein, originally from a jellyfish, was typically attached to an antibody specific to a fruit fly protein, forming a precise indicator of where and when that protein appeared in the living embryo. The pax-6 gene controls development of eyes of different types across the animal kingdom. Using such a technique, in 1994 Walter Gehring found that the pax-6 gene, vital for forming the eyes of fruit flies, exactly matches an eye-forming gene in mice and humans. The same gene was quickly found in many other groups of animals, such as squid, a cephalopod mollusc. Biologists including Ernst Mayr had believed that eyes had arisen in the animal kingdom at least 40 times, as the anatomy of different types of eye varies widely.

Should be put in that (history) chapter. --Ettrig (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Of course, everything we write and cite is history, we can't write articles about the future or even the present. I thought it necessary to set this (from one perspective) very new field in the context of 200 years of history; and from another perspective, to attempt to separate out some of the richly interwoven strands like Deep Homology to help readers navigate around what is quite a complex story - to give them structure and points of reference. Obviously, when covering a field from different points of view, some of the material can always be presented in different ways, whether "History" or as "topics", it's a matter of judgement. There can't be any "right answer" here. But if I were to pull out the materials you mention from the Deep Homology section, there would be almost nothing left; or we'd create a large amount of overlap, and we all try hard to avoid repetition. So rather than think of it as a "non-history chapter", whatever that might be, just think of it as varying the focus, or pointing the spotlight in specific directions to light up one player on the stage at a time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You explain the problem very well. Yes, it is a complex story. Complex organisms are built by complex machineries. Those complex machineries are modified successively. We need to have a picture of how the machinery is defined (genes) and how it works, as a background to descriptions of what happens when it changes. But this text almost doesn't start to describe this. Instead it is filled with historical anectdotes. If these anecdotes are moved to where they belong, then there is "almost nothing left". Exactly! There is very little about the basic substance of the topic. This becomes clear when the statements are sorted under the correct headlines. I don't mean to complain. This is a nice text. I am just pointing out adjustments that are needed to arrive at a Good Article state. --Ettrig (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I don't agree at all. There are no anecdotes at all, only cited and reliably sourced evidence. What I am explaining is that the article looks at the subject from different perspectives. It covers the material, but it would only repeat itself (worded differently) if we put everything into first a historical format, then a topic format. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, evidently we differ on such a fundamental point as whether the content can and should be divided into the categories that the headlines define. I think it can and should. To me this is so fundamental that it is very difficult to find any values that are even more fundamental and can be used to motivate this principle. For the time being, I hope for a reaction from the GA reviewer. --Ettrig (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is fundamentally wrong about describing a topic with its history and its major subtopics? One might have thought that was a necessity for any article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Evolutionary developmental biology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) 13:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an interesting and slightly challenging exercise. Good work in producing a reasonably accessible but non-trivial introduction to the subject. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Main list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Lead

Layout

Words to watch

Fiction (N/A)

Lists
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:
None that I could identify.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
No gaps obvious to me. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
As far as I can tell. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

By section

Lead

OK

History

OK

Recapitulation

OK

Evolutionary morphology

OK.

The modern evolutionary synthesis of the 1930s

OK

The lac operon

Capitalisation of "lac operon" inconsistant.

Fixed.

OK

The birth of evo-devo and a second synthesis

Why is Haeckel's interpretation of evolutionary embryology labelled racist? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to drop it, actually. The source says "In Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Gould demonstrated how Ernst Haeckel had misrepresented the field of evolutionary embryology and made it into an unscientific and racist doctrine." Haeckel used embryology to support his views on race. But I think we don't need to go into that here.

Fair enough, I am not familiar with Haeckel's views on race, more with his illustrations.

OK

The control of body structure

Deep homology

OK.

Gene toolkit

OK.

The embryo's regulatory networks

OK

The origins of novelty

I have not been able to find support for Novelty may arise by mutation-driven changes in gene regulation, probably because I cant access the appropriate reference, but possibly because I couldn't find it in the one I can access. Are you able to quote the material supporting this statement? I am not challenging veracity - it looks quite plausible, so not a crisis if you can't access it either.

"such changes largely occur through mutations in the cis-regulatory sequences of pleiotropic developmental regulatory loci and of the target genes within the vast networks they control." Sean B. Carroll, 2008 (ref 36). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I read that and missed the implication. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Variations in the toolkit

OK

Consolidation of epigenetic changes

OK

Eco-evo-devo

The section doesn't really say much, and I assume it is only there to mention the field as an offshoot of the subject in the interests of broader coverage.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

<ref name=Shalizi>{{cite web |last1=Shalizi |first1=Cosma |title=Review: The Self-Made Tapestry by Philip Ball |url=http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/self-made-tapestry/ |publisher=University of Michigan |accessdate=14 October 2016}}</ref> Link not working. Current link appears to be http://bactra.org/reviews/self-made-tapestry/

Updated URL.

References

OK.

Thank you very much for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]