Talk:G. Ledyard Stebbins: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:05, 27 July 2006

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

G. Ledyard Stebbins received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

History of Science Unassessed

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

flow

In the Evolution and Inheritance in Plants section, the part on Anderson and Mayr seems to come out of nowhere. I realize the purpose (to connect Stebbins with other Modern Synthesis work and give the reader some context for the synthesis), but it seems an awkward transition, beginning with Stebbins' 1946 lectures then jumping back to 1941. I suggest moving the discussions of both Mayr's and Dohzhansky's books to the top of the section (or the end of the previous section) to get that necessary background out of the way before getting to Stebbin's lectures and book.--ragesoss 05:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave you to mess around with it. The connection with the format of Dohzhansky's books and Stebbins is important where it is though since it follows the model established by the earlier work.--Peta 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken a shot at it. It's still a bit weird, but it's better, IMO.--ragesoss 05:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better. Your last edit is perfect.--ragesoss 05:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. There's probably a whole article that could be written on the Columbia Biology Series, but there are too many other gaps to fill first.--Peta 06:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

elaboration of ongoing research

From the UC Davis section:

Research is still ongoing as to whether hybridisation is an accidental consequence of evolution or if it is necessary for the origin and evolution of plant species.

Footnote: Rieseberg, L. H. 1995. The Role of Hybridization in Evolution: Old Wine in New Skins. American Journal of Botany 82:944-953.

If possible, it would be good to have more and more recent sources within this footnote. That article is from 11 years ago, so it doesn't do a great job of illustrating the ongoing investigation of this question.--ragesoss 05:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It the kind of question that will never be settled, so a review that talks specifically about Stebbins research is more useful (and historicaly interesting) that quoting some random recent research. The cited paper also gest 193 citiations in the web of science which refelcts its ongoing use as a starting point to discuss this type of research.--Peta 05:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe mention that in the footnote (and, if you're up for it, search for more recent review papers on the topic to add to the footnote).--ragesoss 05:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to a more recent review on the topic. Quoting citation figures etc,. is heading into the realm of OR.--Peta 05:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good. I'd rather see them both in the same footnote, but that's a style issue I'll leave to your discretion.--ragesoss 05:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

overall impression

One thing I think would help this article a lot is more images. In particular, if there are any conceptual diagrams relating to his scientific work that could be included, that would be ideal.

Regarding the concerns about whether the article makes clear why he was important, I think it could be a lot better in that regard, though I don't really know enough about plant evolution to say how, exactly. A mention of the connections between hybridization and evolution in the introduction might be good.--ragesoss 06:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main difficulty is that the most important thing he did was establish a framework for everyone to work in (not something you can illustrate with a diagram). He had ideas about a lot of specific things, but none that were more important than the 1950 book. I'm stuck on how to get than across.--Peta 06:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 06:01, 27 July 2006 edit Ragesoss (talk \| contribs) Administrators 21,493 edits general impression ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:05, 27 July 2006 edit undo PDH (talk \| contribs) 52,166 edits →overall impression Next edit →
Line 30:		Line 30:

	Regarding the concerns about whether the article makes clear why he was important, I think it could be a lot better in that regard, though I don't really know enough about plant evolution to say how, exactly. A mention of the connections between hybridization and evolution in the introduction might be good.--[[User:Ragesoss\|ragesoss]] 06:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)		Regarding the concerns about whether the article makes clear why he was important, I think it could be a lot better in that regard, though I don't really know enough about plant evolution to say how, exactly. A mention of the connections between hybridization and evolution in the introduction might be good.--[[User:Ragesoss\|ragesoss]] 06:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

			*The main difficulty is that the most important thing he did was establish a framework for everyone to work in (not something you can illustrate with a diagram). He had ideas about a lot of specific things, but none that were more important than the 1950 book. I'm stuck on how to get than across.--[[User:Petaholmes\|Peta]] 06:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)