|WikiProject Genetics||(Rated Start-class)|
Fitness landscape was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Delisted version: September 14, 2006
|WikiProject Evolutionary biology||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
It's also been suggested that adaptive landscapes could be useful in economics, though I'm unaware of any academic articles pointing to such conclusions. A professor of mine simply stated that some economists are now suggesting that "initial conditions and path dependency" are driving factors of the development of an economy, which ties into the notion that there are many local peaks instead of the current (he called it "myopic") view of a global economy with only one peak. I'll try to search for something to back this up before I include it in the article. Until then, discuss? I think it could definitely add to the article. Rkitko 12:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, landscapes are simply a useful illustrative tool. Also see epigenetic landscape (not sure if it exists yet, otherwise see C. H. Waddington). So I'd hope that your economic landscapes would carry a different name. I think you should make a new page if you find significant amounts of material, and put a "See also" link on Fitness landscape and vice versa. - Samsara contrib talk 13:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. Actually, I got redirected here from searching for adaptive landscapes. An adaptive landscape is the tool, a fitness landscape is a type of adaptive landscape used in evolutionary biology. I'm sure I'm just breaking the tip of the iceburg here with uses of adaptive landscapes. Perhaps adaptive landscapes should be a disambiguation page with links to the specific uses like fitness landscape? My economics professor indicated that they indeed wouldn't be called "adaptive landscapes" in economics, but he was unsure as to what economic theory would call them. I'm still searching for something conclusive... Rkitko 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's one source, at least - http://www.worldscinet.com/acs/04/0401/S0219525901000139.html. I'm currently leafing through and verifying that this indeed is a peer-reviewed journal. Rkitko 22:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There are no references at all that I see, and a "further reading" section doesn't mean things the article is being referenced by, it's things the reader may just want to read on their own. Homestarmy 16:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Credit for the connection of epistasis and the landscape shape, should not go to the reference of Beerenwinkel et al. The article of Beerenwinkel et al is only a minor contribution compared to the many papers on epistasis and fitness landscapes. If credit is due, give it to Kauffman. The article of Beerenwinkel et al by the way has not been peer reviewd yet.
- A few points -
- Could you make the corrections yourself, since you appear to be the most well acquainted with the problem?
- Please put comments at the end of the page, with a title if its a new topic. I have done this for this topic.
- PAR 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Although the characterisation of a fitness landscape in this article does seem to encompass every point it seems rather spread out. Wouldn't it be better to have the concept of a fitness landscape and how one works in the introductory paragraphs and then have two subheadings for evol. bio. and evo. optimisation?
Also what is the sub-heading 'Fitness landscapes in biology' doing there. I have added a paragraph on connectivity (which may need a small edit :-) ) in this section simply because it followed on from the material above. However, as far as I can see there is no particular biological theory that couldn't be included in the paragraphs above or below. Which returns me to my first point. Any thoughts? Or will anyone object if I jig it round? Kae1is 18:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- It seems like you have a better handle on the subject than anyone watching this page, so go for it. Just make sure you keep citing your sources and using the reference tags and footnotes when possible. If you need help with the technical side of Wikipedia, I'd be more than happy to help out where I can. Cheers, Rkitko 05:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)