Talk:Marine life: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Epipelagic (talk | contribs) →Vertebrate section: cmt |
→overview: new section |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
::::: Your statement that "Gould doesn't seem noteworthy" seems... odd. Here are [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Stephen+Jay+Gould%22 some Google Scholar results] which indicate the opposite. The fact that Gould selects this particular example for highlighting out of all the examples he might have picked makes it notable and interesting in my mind. --[[User:Epipelagic|Epipelagic]] ([[User talk:Epipelagic|talk]]) 01:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC) |
::::: Your statement that "Gould doesn't seem noteworthy" seems... odd. Here are [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Stephen+Jay+Gould%22 some Google Scholar results] which indicate the opposite. The fact that Gould selects this particular example for highlighting out of all the examples he might have picked makes it notable and interesting in my mind. --[[User:Epipelagic|Epipelagic]] ([[User talk:Epipelagic|talk]]) 01:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
== overview == |
|||
The article has a very neutral view with well researched citations. I would like to see more in the Land Interactions section such as turtle nesting, habitats for inland organisms, or shore pollutants instead of links. Maybe even how erosion effects estuaries and coral reefs.[[User:Lpfalz|Lpfalz]] ([[User talk:Lpfalz|talk]]) 13:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 13:07, 15 March 2017
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marine life article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vertebrate section
I'm going to work on the Vertebrate section, but I just have to ask what's up with that paragraph on icthyosaurs and the passage, "The biologist Stephen Jay Gould said the ichthyosaur was his favourite example of convergent evolution"? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 03:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Excellent and welcome. So far I've made a first pass at the article. In an overview like this there cannot be too much emphasis on any one area. I suppose the challenge is to try and capture key points in the perspective of the whole field, and at the same time keep a measure of topical interest. Vertebrates are overrepresented in current literature, so I have tried in this article to establish a fairer balance for marine invertebrates. I'm well aware the vertebrate section is a bit neglected, but I'm not yet sure how it can be expanded in a balanced way. The article as a whole is already getting a bit large. The passage on Gould simply reflects what he considered important himself... the return to the sea of some life forms and the way they re-established similar adaptations. Do you have a problem with his view? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is Gould noteworthy on such a broad topic as this? Is it important to note that his favourite example of convergent evolution is the icthyosaur? Maybe on the icthyosaur article, but here it just seems drawn out. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well it's a compact and interesting way of drawing attention to the development in land animals of limbs from fins, followed by remarkable readaptions back to fin-like structures as some land animals returned to the sea. As one of the most prominent and wide ranging evolutionary biologists of the time, I would have thought Gould was particularly equipped to indicate that. Is your problem with Gould or with the view he expresses? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Gould doesn't seem noteworthy. It could be changed to something along the lines of, "Icthyosaurs display convergent evolution in that they..." but you don't have to mention Gould or that his favourite example is the Icthyosaur. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well it's a compact and interesting way of drawing attention to the development in land animals of limbs from fins, followed by remarkable readaptions back to fin-like structures as some land animals returned to the sea. As one of the most prominent and wide ranging evolutionary biologists of the time, I would have thought Gould was particularly equipped to indicate that. Is your problem with Gould or with the view he expresses? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your statement that "Gould doesn't seem noteworthy" seems... odd. Here are some Google Scholar results which indicate the opposite. The fact that Gould selects this particular example for highlighting out of all the examples he might have picked makes it notable and interesting in my mind. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
overview
The article has a very neutral view with well researched citations. I would like to see more in the Land Interactions section such as turtle nesting, habitats for inland organisms, or shore pollutants instead of links. Maybe even how erosion effects estuaries and coral reefs.Lpfalz (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)