Talk:Maximum parsimony (phylogenetics)

comments

Maximum parsimony is not the correct title for this article - the word "maximum" is implicit in the term parsimony and its usage...

Good article, anon, but I wish to improve it to clarify some points and possibly make it more accessible.

OLD: Maximum parsimony

Maximum parsimony is a simple but popular technique in bioinformatics to predict the best phylogenetic tree for an organism.

NEW: Introduction

Maximum parsimony is a simple but popular technique used in cladistics to predict an accurate phylogenetic tree for a set of taxa (commonly a set of species or reproductively-isolated populations of a single species.

Comments: The level 2 heading 'maximum parsimony' is redundant - have replaced with 'Introduction'. 'Bioinformatics' has been replaced with 'cladistics' because the former is more of a broad approach to biological research than a specific field of research. Have removed 'best' from introduction as this does not scientifically-describe the criteria for an optimal tree - 'accurate' is better. In addition, 'best' could be inferred as stating that MP is the best method to produce a tree when there is no consensus that any method is the best under all circumstances. Have also replaced 'organism' with 'set of taxa' and given two examples of appropriate sets to compare.

--ChrisJMoor 00:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be some mention of bootstrapping. Jim Bowery 18:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

NEW VERSION

I've done the best I can with what is here, but it would be great if, in the future, someone could break this out into separate artciles for different classes of data, types of analysis, and optimality criteria. As it is, the MP entry is pretty much holding down the entire subject of character-based phylogenetics, which isn't ideal. And, of course, citations would really help alot. Everything in the article is supported, honest. Google Hillis. 24.174.131.158 02:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce: you are doing a really good job with this article!70.113.48.142 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

redo

The WP:LEDE is probably too long... and many other nitpicks to be repaired... I'll try to add some cites as time permits but will be busy this week... --Ling.Nut 06:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Mmmm, also looks to me like there may be more than a little shtuff that needs to be moved to some other article(s), such as the paragraph beginning: "Neighbor-joining is a form of star decomposition..." Will do as time permits. --Ling.Nut 07:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, almost the entire Alternatives section is not directly related to this article & should be moved out to other articles... --Ling.Nut 08:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Plus the Criticism section is looking disturbingly like WP:OR. It was filled with... really blatant violations of WP:SELF as well.. "It has been asserted in a previous version of this article.." Yikes! --Ling.Nut 08:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

feedback

Great job editing this page!

- Agree on the "alternatives" material: I do hope some of it can be salvaged...

- The "criticism" is not Original Research... most of these criticism IS in fact published, but finding references is not going to be pleasant. Some of the RESPONSES may be even more difficult to find references for.

- I haven't read the "self-referencing" guidlines, but I never actually CITED myself. For what it is worth.

Again, you are doing a great job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.166.125 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)