Talk:Kin selection/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CaptainEek (talk · contribs) 21:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Eek's Examination

• I'm not quite sold on using Britannica as a source for the first line. I suggest a better source, or perhaps honestly: just remove it altogether. It can be summarized from the article.
  • Removed, it's redundant.
• There is a comment in the Hamilton section, it looks like it needs to either be incorporated or removed
  • Removed.
• "Several scientific studies" and yet there is only one source...I would add the other papers
  • Reorganised.
• "model can be applied to nature" do you mean that the model is verified to work in the real world? If so, you may want to change the wording a bit
  • Fixed.
• Wikilink, or add a parenthetical explanation to "Fecundity" in the viscous populations section
  • Done.
• The green beard section has only one citation and its 50+ years old. I suggest also pulling in a newer paper and maybe ensuring the findings are up to date
  • Done.
• The quote from Stuart West is overly long and dense. I'm a scientist by training and even I just wanted to skim over it. I would probably suggest paraphrasing it or choosing a more select quote
  • I've actually removed it as repetitive; the PDF is there for those as want to read more.
• "The assumption that kin recognition must be innate..." That entire sentence is way too long and complex. Break it up a bit for readability.
  • Good idea, done.
• I'd throw a few more pictures in. I suggest some vervet monkeys, Darwin, and another eusocial insect for starters. If possible, I would try to find a picture of W.D. Hamilton and the shrimp. You might also use a picture of John Maynard Smith or any of the other prominent contributors to the subject. Also, any one of the plant species you mention.
  • Added, but we must avoid mere decoration.
• You have a commented out ref in the last sentence of observational studies, I suggest incorporate or remove
  • Removed.
• If you have access to the Donner party article, I think that would be super interesting to include a more full discussion of
  • Noted.
• You have some parenthetical in-text refs in the Human social patterns section, which should be removed
  • Removed.
• Also, references for block quotes should go after the colon that introduces them, as in the human social pattern quote
  • Fixed.
• per se is a suffuciently uncommon term that I would not use it unless strictly necessary
  • Reworded.
• "fathers" or" mothers" are a bit weird terms when working with plants, given that plants may have several different sex setups. I suggest using a more botanically accurate term
  • Reworded.
• A comment in the objections section says "extremely!". Unless there is some grand need for it, I would remove it or incorporate it
  • Removed.

All in all, nicely done. I have not yet reviewed your images since I suggest you add more first. Ping me once you've got this taken care of and we'll go from there :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: – Many thanks for the thoughtful review. All done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap Thanks for the quick fixes. The images check out. That's a pass! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)