# Talk:Transitional fossil

This review is transcluded from Talk:Transitional fossil/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


### Criteria
### Review
Well-written:

Verifiable with no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:


#### Result
#### Discussion
Please add any related discussion here.
Goodness gracious, they really did change up the GA page format! I should do this a bit more often.
I would say in general, you want to have at least one source per paragraph at the GA level. It's good practice: You really can't have too few citations. In particular, I would like to see more citations for the "Transitions in phylognetic nomenclature" and the Australopithecus sections; they seem to be the sparsest sections. If a citation covers more than one sentence, just put it at the end of the paragraph, and that should be fine. I've given several sections a quick copyedit for some grammatical and spelling mistakes, although I feel that the article as a whole could use a bit more fine polishing on the prose. It seems to hit all the spots content-wise though, and the images check out. bibliomaniac15 05:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and have done another pass this morning. --Stfg (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
A few "'Citation needed" tags have been added. What needs to be sourced is self evident in most cases, but there's a couple of points which are not entirely clear:
After On the Origin of Species, the idea of "lower animals" representing earlier stages in evolution lingered, as demonstrated in Ernst Haeckel's figure of the human pedigree. This sentence has two pieces of information: The lingering view of "lower animals", and that it can be seen in Haeckels work. There is a figure from Haeckel that illustrate this point, but it's not a source per se. Ideas?
Haeckel published on the subject himself. The idea of the "Great chain of being" is much older, before people thought of evolution (you'll find some sources there... including Lovejoy's book of that name, I read it at uni.) and more on the web under that heading.Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
At the time it was hailed by many as the "missing link", helping set the term as primarily used for human fossils, though it is sometimes used for other intermediates, like Archaeopteryx. Again, there's two pieces of information: 1) "Missing links" is primarily used for the animal.human transition, and 2) it is also sometimes used for other transitionals. Which one of them is it that needs a source? Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Could the ideal answer be "both"? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It could indeed :-)  Now, that was that bit of sourcing squared away. It's going to be tough finding some decent sources for the cladistics section though. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Contents
There's a lot of good content in the article, but it is (to my mind) not presented in an order that make the article flow naturally. This has been bugging me for some time, I'll take a stab at rearranging it. If mu copyedits is not to peoples liking, feel free to revert my edits, but if so, please give a reason for doing so! Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems rather strange timing, Petter. What have you in mind? --Stfg (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
First off, we need a definition-section, which should be followed by the "science" bits (Limitations of the fossil record, Transitions in phylogenetic nomenclature, Transitional versus ancestral). After that should come the history-section, and the article should round off with the examples. Where the examples overlap with the text in the earlier, the examples should be dealt with in the earlier sections. Per now, we have two sections on Archaeopteryx, which is neither here nor there. I have tried to get some interest in rearranging the the contents before, but with no response, so I decided to be bold and just do it. Seems it was unpopular though. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
(GA Reviewer) - I think there are merits on both sides of this discussion. For me, the main issue is actually not the text but the presentation of the examples, which was quite technical and not well served by the images: a T.S. micrograph for a discussion of the branching growth habit of Rhynia; a skull for a discussion of the inward-angled femur and bipedal locomotion of A. afarensis among others. Since the instructions to GA reviewers permit it, I have boldly gone ahead and attempted to fix this - please feel free to edit these as I do not wish to impose by reason of my temporary role.
Petter's feeling on the undesirability of 2 sections on Archaeopteryx is noted, but perhaps the use of a historic reconstruction (as per the GA Review notes above) solves the problem - the article rightly looks at the fossil both with modern eyes and for its historic and popular impact.
Are people happy with that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The main action (with a bit of temperature to it) seems to be happening here: Talk:Transitional_fossil#Major_alterations_during_GA_review. Your input would be very welcome. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
So I see. What is your view of my suggestion above? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Chiswick Chap. If you have found a way that will satisfy the scientists and allow you to pass the GA, I will certainly be happy with it. --Stfg (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The new images are better. What about this for an historic Archaeopteryx image? Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh good. If you prefer the Heinrich Harder image, go right ahead and use it - the text may need altering a little. I'll proceed with the rest of my review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
What's the status of this review? Little seems to have happened the past couple weeks, ideally both sides should be wrapping up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's on hold. I am monitoring; a pass requires only that the remaining citations needed are supplied, and for me to verify that work. If you can help (e.g. by finding volunteers), that would resolve the situation. many thanks Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


### The last few references
The last references are going to be tricky to find. These are references at to how phylogenetic literature treat transitional fossils. Since phyl. lit. do not recognize transitions between groups, it is a bit like finding an Atheist text discussing God. I'm not saying such sources don't exist, but you'll need someone well versed in the arcana of phylogenetic literature (i.e not me) to dig them out. Petter Bøckman (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I've located one useful reference (it's a book talking about evolution being supported by the fossil record), although it doesn't have quite everything. Actually, I am beginning to think that discussing it in terms of crown group versus stem group species may be better than "basal taxa" and "sister taxa". Allens (talk | contribs) 23:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
There's actually two problems with using crown-stem to explain this: One is that transitional fossils do not necessarily have any crown-group (an hypothetical ur-trilobite for instance, or a transitional critter between primitive and advanced pterosaurs) and thus no stem group either, the other is that what this sentence is conveying is really that the cladistic method can not identify a transitional fossil, much less an actual ancestral one. A true ancestor, let's say a true ancestral bird, would just end up like a sister group to the birds, just like Archaeopteryx. Crown and stem should be mentioned though. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Found it!
I found a source saying fairly much what I just wrote above. It's Amphibians, Systematics, and Cladistics from Palaeos website. I suppose it's borderline, but Palaeos is considered a reputable source in a number of other Wikipedia artickles. Read through it (it's short and readable, another one of Palaeos good points) and see if you think it is a relevant for this article. I'll include it if there's no objections. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly relevant and reputable; Palaeos is a well-informed and long-established secondary source reporting the key ideas in this field, which is ideal for this purpose here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
What about this one? It is a blog, but the writes are serious scientists, and both seems hard core phylogenetic nomenclaturists (and downright hostile to the concept of "tranbsition"). Is it useable? Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it is, but Palaeos seems more solid and defensible as a source for this purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


### Additional Notes
How does one add the Feedback tool to an article? That would be very useful and would show us areas that this article can improve. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Added the feedback option. Haven't gotten any yet. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"Whoever wrote this seems to be confused regarding what constitutes the term "missing link". I was referring to a post-Darwinian use of the term whereby modern humans are directly connected to a specific line of hominid. Though his (her) explanation of Java man is acceptable, and is definitely not missing, the inference that future discoveries will somehow fill in does infer that for now they are indeed missing."
What are your thoughts? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The commenter seem to have missed the references for the term having several meanings. The article has an example of the term used by a modern researcher (Benton) using it for a non-humanoid fossil, the Archaeopteryx. Perhaps we need to make this more clear? Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Should this fit into the article in any way? 

Vestigial organs are common in whales (legs),[25] flightless birds (wings), snakes (pelvis and lung), and numerous structures in humans (the coccyx, plica semilunaris, and appendix).
--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What would be needed to bring the article to FA status? 
What areas do you think need expanding?
--Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That last IP edit reminded me. A section on the Platypus and other animals like that could be interesting. It would go under "Misunderstandings". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Mm, yes. Love the mammal evolving into a duck, or was it the other way round. It will be a controversial section that could create quite a challenge for FA; finding reliable, undisputed sources for it might be .. interesting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The section "missing link" (in the as-of-writing current revision does not make sense to me. The sources do support the claim that modern use of the term can be emphasized unduly, or lead to lopsided understanding of human evolution; they does not support a characterization of transitional fossils being a "misconception", or the implication that people looking for transitional fossils were operating under false premises (in fact, just the opposite -- the section details numerous discoveries, like the Java Man, which identified the missing links which had been unknown at the time). I am going to copyedit the section. jp×g 01:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)