# Talk:Reinforcement (speciation)

The lead to this article is completely incomprehensible to a general reader, and even to one with significant education in the biological sciences. The diagram illustrating the lead does not help in the slightest: if anything, it adds further layers of jargonistic unexplained concepts.86.43.168.153 (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I reworded the first paragraph to be a little easier to understand. The sentence you provided was inaccurate. Reinforcement is speciation caused by selection against unfit hybrids. Additionally, the original first sentence contained the appropriate links to be able to understand the fundamentals of the topic. The reworded one did not. Speciation, reproductive isolation, hybrids, fitness, etc are all important to understanding a rather complex and technical topic. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reinforcement (speciation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'll do this one. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


### Comments
This is a fine article on a major and 'difficult' topic, and it's good to see it here at GAN.
I'm not keen on using the RP template to place page numbers actually in the text; it's also inconsistent to use it only occasionally, though many readers may feel that preferable to seeing it used everywhere. Personally I'd much prefer putting the book in Sources and using short refs to it, just naming authors, date, and page - the Harvard system with the SFN template makes this easy and automates the link to the source too. Alternatively, you could just divide up the refs into a few page ranges which you could name (like ref name="Orr354-357", ref name="Orr361-366", ref name="Orr369-372") and you'd only need a few separate refs to cover the usages: that way, all your refs would be in the same style.
The RP template is not my favorite, but I feel it makes it easiest to reference the same source when it is used well over 20 times. I really only use it with large books as it is unnecessary with journals. My defense for its use is that it is easier to keep track of information this way, it is minimally invasive, easy to use and reference back to, and enhances the accuracy of the text. I wish there was a universal consensus for references on Wikipedia because issues like this would be easier to deal with. Every article has different formats. :(
Well, it's *far* more invasive – it directly puts page numbers into the main text – than using harv or short refs, or simply using a few page ranges: indeed, those do not affect the main text at all. I think you'd only need to use about 3 page range refs, which would fix the problem nicely and bring the styles into line. I may just boldly go, since there's no sign of movement on anyone else's part.
While we're on refs, I note that you mainly use "John R. Doe", but sometimes "Doe, J. R." which would frankly be better and in line with most science articles, but it's your choice. If only Wikipedia had a standard and stuck to it, but it'd probably be the naffest possible so I'll be careful what I wish for.
I kept the name orders consistent with first last. This was simply an arbitrary choice mostly based on the fact that when I cite a source, I just highlight and copy-paste the author names from the articles. They are often listed first last (except in the references, where they are listed last, first). I fixed some of the textual issues you brought up as well as making sure first usage words are fully spelled out.
OK, but I note that it's references we're talking about here, not names in article headers, so if you were trying to be consistent with the articles you are citing, your reasoning would lead to Last, First as suggested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
File:Reinforcement Parameter Space (annot).png seems to me to be somewhat problematic at the moment. Firstly, the contrast is poor especially when the image is small - the word 'Extinction' against darkish brown, and the "increased speciation/increased hybridization" arrow labels are basically unreadable. Secondly, the use of high-contrast white circular arrows implies movement of some kind, but all they are is lines attaching labels to smaller regions of the diagram - basically they're minor or (ideally) redundant features that could be eliminated by a degree of redesign. Thirdly, the boundaries between the 'complete' and incomplete areas seem a bit surprising and possibly unnecessary? File:Reproductive Character Displacement.png has some of the same issues of legibility.
As for the images, I can make modifications where needed. The curved arrows do not represent movement here, so I can change them. They basically exist because I wanted large, readable font, but it does not always fit in the small parameter spaces. I can change colors as well to increase legibility. The boundaries are arbitrary but I felt it helps with issues where someone may have difficulty distinguishing the gradients.
I made some adjustments to the images. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. The allopatric image is way better too.
As an aside (not a GA requirement), you evidently have a vector source but you have published these images in a raster (.png) format. The images would be more maintainable and much more scalable (better quality) in vector format - Wikipedia uses .svg which can be generated with the free tool Inkscape, and it can import a variety of image types including the vector formats .emf and .wmf. Some tools can save directly to .svg.
The long list of Evidence from nature seems quite hard to justify in a text article. Basically it's just a "here's yet another example" section, perfect for a list article. This article needs a summary of the evidence, but it's hard to see how a list is justifiable here - we don't need to know that echinoderms also exemplify the phenomenon. Further, there seems no reason to approach the evidence taxonomically - it's surely just an accident or convenience of study that has led to just this set of examples being researched. (If there is some taxonomic explanation, then it is missing at the moment.) It would make more sense to select an example or two of character displacement (amphibians?), an example or two of rates of hybridization (amphibians again), a discussion of lab work to test fertility of hybrids (sea urchins, fungi), etc, dividing these into subsections by topic (those 3, maybe others). In short, this section needs to be reworked, and I think it will inevitably be radically cut down in that rework (the list could if desired be hived off as a separate list article). Since the needed materials seem already to be present, this should however not be difficult.
The evidence section. I contemplated creating a separate article for the evidence of reinforcement. I was unsure what to name it as to distinguish speciation by reinforcement from the other terms of reinforcement (from psychology, materials, etc.). Maybe Evidence of speciation by reinforcement? I could move the huge list to its own article and simply summarize the evidence here, including all three factors (nature, lab, comparative). The question is, how comprehensive should the summary be? Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, for the new article, there are numerous titles that could be used: Evidence for speciation by reinforcement, Evidence of speciation by reinforcement, Evidence of reinforcement, Evidence for reinforcement, Evidence for reinforcement (speciation), Evidence of reinforcement (speciation). Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 00:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I think Evidence for speciation by reinforcement would be best, but it would be fine to make redirects for the others so the search terms are available. The summary should be short, in 3 sections as you say, and should aim to preserve all the most useful references. (I just did this for the In culture section of Animal from Animals in culture, and it's amazing how much one can compress without losing the sense.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Since we agree, and nothing seems to be happening, I've boldly gone. Both articles look happy to me.
"(see Alternative hypotheses below)." - isn't a good style; best remove it.
When names are first introduced, they must be spelt out in full - Jerry Coyne, H. Allen Orr; Magicicada in the map caption; Drosophila in the table.
"Ecology also plays a role in such that selection may reduce the overlap". Something wrong here.
"its ubiquity remains unknown as well as its prevalence in nature". It isn't immediately obvious what the difference is between these two things: a gloss would be useful here, and the sentence in any case needs to be reworded ("both U. and P. remain unknown").
I've made a few small copyedits where these seemed necessary, I hope these are fine with you.
I agreed with your copy edits and made several more adding author links and the like.
Excellent.


### Summary
With the changes made, I'm happy to promote this article to GA status now. I hope you'll take the time to review one or two articles from the list of nominations at GAN. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence! I had to leave town for a short while and was unable to finish working on the article. I see you have moved the evidence section to its own article. I agree with the changes. Thank you for promoting it to good article status! Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 01:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

My PhD thesis is in speciation and I have a peer-reviewed journal article published on the topic of reinforcement. I can say with 99% confidence that the evo bio community does not use secondary contact to mean reinforcement. Anyone who might use the term in this imprecise manner would have it pointed out by a reviewer. I don't have Dobzhansky's book at hand, but even if he did use the terminology like that in 1937, it is not how we use the term today. Yel D'ohan (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help the reader if the term secondary contact was referred to, not as a synonym, but as a term that has been applied in regards to reinforcement? Currently there is a redirect from secondary contact to reinforcement. Maybe the lead could have the parenthetical removed and the bold use of the term secondary contact placed in the sentence about Dobzhansky's conception of the term? This might help remove the assumption of synonym? Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 02:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think secondary contact would be better redirected to hybrid zone instead of here, and eventually it should be given its own article. As one of the figures shown, reinforcement is only one of the four possible outcomes of secondary contact. If we have to mention it, perhaps something like "reinforcement may occur during secondary contact" in one of the opening sentences would work.  Yel D'ohan (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree, it should have an article of its own. We could remove the redirect entirely and let the link simply be red. And honestly, we probably don't need to mention it in the lead at all by the fact that it needs its own article. We can link the use of the term in the sentence about Dobzhansky's conception. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 03:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

it is somewhat confusing that the article uses first the term "reproductive isolation" and later refers to it as "post-zygotic isolation" without clarifying that they are one and same. to find this out requires further inquiry from the layperson. i personally find post-zygotic a somewhat cryptic expression and would rather see it only once in the article at the very first time when "reproductive isolation" is mentioned, as a remark in brackets informing that it is also called "post-zygotic isolation", and then never more. at least  the circumstance that the "post-zygotic isolation" expression leads to a redirect and the respective article refers to it as "reproductive isolation" seems to suggest that the latter term is/should be/ preferred.89.134.199.32 (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC).