Talk:Heterochrony/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 19:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- first sentence: Maybe provide more links (e.g., developmental process) so that the reader can access very basic biology articles needed for understanding?
- Added.
- Citations not needed in lead here; should be repeated in text.
- Moved.
- He assumed that embryonic development (ontogeny) of "higher" animals – "He" is Haeckel, not Gould, right?
- Yes.
- paedomorphosis (neoteny) – link at first mention in main text?
- Done.
- and suggested that the vertebrates arose – not sure, but is the "the" too much?
- Brit.
- "higher" animals recapitulated their ancestral development (phylogeny). – Maybe an example could be helpful here, e.g. the gill-like structures in human embryos?
- Added.
- De Beer anticipated evolutionary developmental biology in his 1930 book – I think this might be missing some context on evo-devo. When was this field established, and what role did heterochrony play? If you think this is out of place here, I would alternatively suggest to replace/reword "anticipated evolutionary developmental biology" since it may not be accessible without the background knowledge.
- Added.
- In 1928, the English embryologist Walter Garstang showed that tunicate larvae shared structures such as the notochord with adult vertebrates, and suggested that the vertebrates arose by paedomorphosis (neoteny) from such a larva.[9] – This could do with an additional sentence clarifying the significance of this. Which particular general concept was first established here?
- Added a gloss.
- Intraspecific heterochrony, Interspecific heterochrony, paedotypic etc – need redirects to this article?
- Why not, feel free. Not a GA matter.
- Ambystoma talpoideum, metamorphosis – link?
- Linked.
- Reilly et al – lacks a dot, but I would suggest "and colleagues" to make this article more accessible
- Done.
- Section "Paedomorphosis" – it does not become quite clear how to tell apart neoteny and progenesis. How do we determine that Axolotls show progenesis rather than neoteny? Do they simply become sexually mature more quickly compared to their ancestors? Maybe this could be stated for clarity.
- Glossed.
- Paedomorphosis may play a critical role in avian cranial evolution.[35] – and is this an example of neoteny or progenesis?
- Progenesis.
- up to 12 feet wide – SI units should be preferred here, maybe with conversion
- Convert-ed.
- its close relative the moose – needs comma and link?
- Done.
- Insular rodents have evolved these features to accommodate the abundance of food and resources they have on their islands. – link to Foster's rule?
- Linked.
- The mole salamander, a close relative to – are you indeed referring to the genus as a whole here, as linked?
- Species linked.
- in the Puerto Rican Tree frog. – also here, link needs to be more precise.
- Local species group linked.
- Population density, food, and the amount of water may have an effect on the expression of heterochrony. – How does this relate to developmental plasticity? Maybe that term should be mentioned under "related concepts"?
- Well, like you I presume it's implied, but we'd best stay with what's stated.
- and it was much in favour for many years,... . – Excessive punctuation?
- Direct quotation.
- Yes I know, but you use the ellipsis to indicate you left something out. Why, then, not simply leave out the "," and the "." as well? As is, it looks a bit chaotic. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Done.
- Yes I know, but you use the ellipsis to indicate you left something out. Why, then, not simply leave out the "," and the "." as well? As is, it looks a bit chaotic. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Direct quotation.
- — Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's tale (first edition, 2004), Rendezvous 24, Sea squirts – This quote seems to need an inline citation instead of providing the book title directly, with page number.
- Cited.
- That's all! Nice overview article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you!
- Looks good, promoting now. But see one reply above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks, removed the stray punctuation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good, promoting now. But see one reply above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you!