User talk:Chiswick Chap/TalkArchive2017

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Natural selection

On 31 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Natural selection, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Darwin introduced the theory of evolution by natural selection, but was not the first to use the term "survival of the fittest"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Natural selection. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Natural selection), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Some decorative epiphylly for the new year

	Happy New Year!
	Thank you for your hard work to improve biology articles in Wikipedia! May 2017 bring you overall happiness as well as unexpected good news. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this a cladode that I see before me? Many thanks for the gift, and the good wishes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A page that needs some sort of drastic action

I wonder if you have any ideas of what to do about Generative science, but I would certainly understand if you would rather not touch it. It is misusing citations, and I would say that it has strayed into fantasy, mistaking simulation for the real world. I don't think discussion of free will belongs on the page even if a helpful definition of "ontological entity" were to be provided: "Thus, the unpredictability of the emerging behavior from deterministic processes leads to a perception or illusion of free will, even though free will as an ontological entity does not exist". (It reminds me of the aphorism 'if the word "science" is in the name, then it isn't science'.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly a "crick of shot", as Dr. Spooner might have said. Curiously, it describes several real phenomena, from herd behaviour to Chomsky's generative grammar. The only thing is, there's no honest connection between these things, so I presume it's all fringe. Fancy categorising it as pseudoscience? That should make the fur fly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Flying fur seems inevitable, but I think I've hit on a possible direction to take after looking for Systems Theory citations, which (surprisingly) make somewhat more sense. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with that. I think I'd done the best that I can with it, though it hasn't reached a minimally acceptable level of comprehensibility yet. Perhaps posterity can deal with it in some way. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I watched with admiration, but I agree, I still don't understand it! If there are any reliable sources that cover the field (as opposed to bits of it, linked together with OR and SYNTH), then it's be easy, but I think there are only in-universe pseudotexts; if I could prove that I'd categorise the article at once. It's actually pretty hard to prove a negative, i.e. that something doesn't hang together. How should one go about it? The nicest would be to find a RS sternly criticising the thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I asked a friend whose specialty is history and philosophy of science, who says that tripe like that is common at conferences in the field! Some people claim to have come up with an all-encompassing theory of biology that is easily refuted by known examples, but they just ignore the refutations and keep presenting the same tripe at other conferences. (The particular example was refutable by the existence of cellular organelles with their own DNA, but what the grandiose theory was, I didn't grasp.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess it was a pseudo-spiritual claim about the all-controlling nature of nuclear DNA. I think the article should be tagged as OR and SYNTH, and categorised as pseudoscience in consequence. Either the article doesn't hang together logically, or my CPU has failed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've fired a shot across the fur on the talk page. (I trust that your CPU has cheered up, or soon will.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

molecular biology

do you think the above article still does not merit B[1]? (if the 5 "citations needed" were addressed)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a good question: it may well not. I replied on the talk page. If you are an involved editor then it might be best for you not to attempt to answer the question yourself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• [2] only if its cited?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Only if the citation is put to use somewhere. What is the point in a 'further reading', 'additional citations', 'unused sources' section? Against such a thing, it's an ideal place for authors wishing to publicise themselves to add whatever they like, not that I think anything like that applies in this instance; and it does nothing to help the reader. If the source says something useful to the article, say it in the text, and cite it. If not, don't. My tuppence worth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

ok--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Grasshopper FAC

I did not have this FAC watchlisted, but now I have. User:Aa77zz has made some comments on the referencing and I am going to start on them now, working from the end so that the reference numbers don't change in the interim. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

On further thoughts, I will leave them to you because I see that the numbers are already wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I just fixed the deadlinks without changing the number of refs so I'm in no better position than you, nor can I have caused any ref numbering to change - I expect the other reviewer deleted a link or two. I guess we have to proceed using the old version indicated by the reviewer, and in any case most of the changes will be clear enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I will work from the end and do from #40 onwards. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Do you have the page ref for #13? Nothing on it in Gullan/Cranston. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I've fixed everything except refs 13 and 14; the latter material is too basic for scientific papers, and the reviewer doesn't like schoolbooks. Ideas? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed one and replaced the other. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

for people who care about refnames

Try putting

insource:"/<ref name=\":0\">/"

into Wikipedia's search engine. It's a lot easier to fix the errors when you can find them. DS (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Dazzle ship

Dazzle-ships in Drydock at Liverpool, 1919, National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa.

Hello
You just reverted my removal of the hatnote at dazzle camouflage saying that "dazzle ship" redirects there with the summary "..still correct, relevant and up to date". I removed it because I have just put an article at that title, so; it doesn't, any more. Swanny18 (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@ Swanny18: I just saw the article appear. "Dazzle ship" has as I said on its talk page been used for 100 years to denote a naval or merchant ship painted in dazzle camouflage. It is not appropriate to change the correct redirect from their for a new article which might reasonably be entitled "dazzle artwork ship" or something of that sort. I would be very grateful if you could rename your new article to something like that now. There are many reliable sources showing that dazzle ship has a long-established meaning. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all, what reliable sources?

Second, a google search for “dazzle ship” throws up hits almost exclusively for the current commemorative artworks. If you aren't happy with what I have done, you could always start a conversation on it, without high-handedly reverting what I've just spent the last hour on. Sheesh! Swanny18 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: And I think I know a little bit about the subject to not necessarily agree with you about the absolute meaning of the term.. Swanny18 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, firstly the search term was already in use at Dazzle camouflage, the lead section indicating that Dazzle ships was a major alternative search term. Secondly, and more importantly, the term has a 100-year history of use. The recent 2016 usage to commemorate this centenary has ironically thrown up many ephemeral mentions of the term in the popular media: we may guess that these mentions will rapidly diminish as the centenary passes and the artworks fade. However, the fact that there is a centenary celebration at all should give one pause to consider why the term was so important in the first place. That it has been so is readily established.

First, essentially all books on camouflage discuss dazzle ships in detail. A reliable recent book, carefully researched, is Peter Forbes's Dazzled and Deceived: Mimicry and Camouflage, Yale, 2009 (pp. 90-100 on dazzle ships) which analyzes the history of camouflage.

Secondly, major painters of the period such as Edward Wadsworth painted numerous dazzle ships such as Dazzle-ships in Drydock at Liverpool, 1919.

Thirdly, histories of art such as Joan M. Marter's The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art, Oxford University Press, 2011, use the term, vol 1, p. 401.

Fourthly, histories such as Nicholas J. Saunders and Paul Cornish's Contested Objects: Material Memories of the Great War, Routledge, 2014, uses the term, quoted as a phrase in common use, in the title of its chapter on ship camouflage by Jonathan Black: "'A few broad stripes': Perception, Deception, and the 'Dazzle Ship' phenomenon of the First World War.", pp. 190-202.

Fifthly, historians of the time such as Sir Henry John Newbolt used the phrase, as "You look long and hard at this dazzle-ship. She doesn't give you any sensation of being dazzled; but she is, in some queer way, all wrong". Submarine and Anti-Submarine, Longmans, Green and Co, 1919. p. 46.

Sixthly, cultural histories such as Patrick Deer's Culture in Camouflage: War, Empire, and Modern British Literature use the term, as when the Vorticism art movement claimed to have inspired Dazzle Ship camouflage. Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 46.

All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those sources.

There seems to be a big disconnect between popular use nowadays (as per the google search) and use in more literary sources. I checked google books also, and pretty much all of the hits there used it in the FWW context. So that would settle it.

I confess I hadn't noticed the bold term in the introduction; I thought the redirect was referring to the Art section, where the modern efforts are described. OTOH the redirect title didn't have any incoming links (and still only has the ones I put in for my article; I'm going to change them now). Also, the use of the term in the Dc article isn't sourced; can I suggest adding some to firm it up if it's going to be the primary meaning?

I wasn't too fussed on the title you chose for my article (as it isn't supported by my sources); it should be “Dazzle ship (something)”, so I've gone with “Dazzle ship (14-18NOW)”. Frankly, I'm a bit pleased that there is some distinction between the original designs and the modern ones, as they are a real disappointment. The designs were supposed to commemorate the work of people like Wadsworth, but we've ended up with a patchwork quilt, a graffiti wall, and a Rastafarian cruise ship. It's an opportunity missed; I for one would have liked to see Snowdrop in an original design, to get an idea of how effective it was.

Anyway, my regards (and sorry for being short with you last night; wrong time of day!). Swanny18 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Insects in culture

The article Insects in culture you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Insects in culture for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 凰兰时罗 -- 凰兰时罗 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ben Youssef Madrasa

Hey there, do you mind undoing the removal of the image gallery for the Madrasa? Just as Notre Dame de Paris has a gallery, so too should this important building, especially as it breaks from earlier Nasrid and Marinid motifs and design. If there were too many images, then there should at least be a gallery of the most important architectural features from the Saadian dynasty. Cheers from NYC jcooper (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Civility, please. If the argument is WP:otherstuffexists then I'm not really convinced: this is at the moment a very short article, with several images already. The Notre Dame article is more than 11 times as long, and it's actually overweight with images also. For the Madrasa, we can put a few images in a gallery if people "act responsible", but adding a gallery with rows and rows of images really isn't a great way to start. I've selected five good representative images, which makes six already, plenty for a small article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for replacing the gallery, I updated and cited the images. jcooper (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. The article now needs a decent supporting text with a little history. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Tick

I will work on the GA review this evening and may leave some things for you to deal with later/tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

human convergent evolution

Hi! There is a request for coverge of this topic at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences/Biology, so was going to add a section about "color of skin & eyes" under 5. Animals. I've made 2 figures for this, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ConEvoSkin2jpg.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ConEvoEyes2jpg.jpg I'm a retired geneticist, so I know these topics, and have had considerable editing experience, even though I've only been at it for about a month. Is it OK with you if I add the section and images? DennisPietras (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: Sounds great! Go right ahead - I'm not the ringmaster (and nor is anyone else). I'm sure you know about citing your sources: there are some differences with normal academic writing which another academic has usefully described. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Your arrangement of the images is better, thanks! BTW, I thought of how I could show in the diagram that there were some intermediate changes in both groups to lighten the skin before divergence. So, I passed parts of the image through ImageJ a couple times, and manually pasted parts of the lighter versions over the original, then uploaded it as a new version, which is now on the article. There was probably an easier way to lighten, but that was all I know how to do. DennisPietras (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure. Probably better in future to use an image editing tool like Paintshop to tweak the image contrast or "curves": and start with the largest images possible! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Middle East Command Camouflage Directorate

The article Middle East Command Camouflage Directorate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Middle East Command Camouflage Directorate for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Major John Sholto Douglas

The Douglas Archives article is compiled by myself, so a circular reference and not yet verifiable, as referred to in your comment here. Thank you for the interesting additions to the Middle East Command Camouflage Directorate page. Shipsview (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

(amused) - yes, I saw a quote from the article so realised that at least some of it was circular; and there won't be any effect on this article. However there's surely no doubt that he's one of the family, indeed one of its leaders. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Diffused lighting camouflage

The article Diffused lighting camouflage you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Diffused lighting camouflage for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding citation needed tags for GA article candidate Scallop

Thanks a ton for reading over this article and helping me get it ready for becoming a Good Article. Question: the second citation needed tag you placed was to a paragraph that read as follows: "Like the true oysters (family Ostreidae), scallops have a single central adductor muscle, thus the inside of their shells has a characteristic central scar, marking the point of attachment for this muscle. The adductor muscle of scallops is larger and more developed than those of oysters, because scallops are active swimmers; some species of scallops are known to move en masse from one area to another. In scallops, the shell shape tends to be highly regular, and is commonly used as an archetypal form of a seashell." Can I get you to specify for me which part of that paragraph needs the citation? I will be glad to provide it once so. Thanks again! KDS4444 (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@KDS4444: I think all of it should be cited: I should have thought a general invert. zoo. text could cover it without too much trouble, but if you need more than one, that would be fine too. I would prefer not to get involved here so that I can if need be review the article, which (barring a few citations) looks like a very strong candidate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yay! Am chiseling away at the citations issue with gusto, and have already taken care of many of them (still have many to go, though). Am looking forward to giving you a heads-up once I have finished with the business. Might be a few more days! KDS4444 (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I have now taken a stab at completing all of the citation-needed templates! How do I move forward from here? Or do I continue to sit and wait until a reviewer comes along? KDS4444 (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well done. That is the procedure, yes. I'll take a look when I get a moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@ KDS4444: I'm starting the review now. I will add more comments later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

congratulations on GA for convergent evolution!

I've been especially interested in how the skin color (you keep spellling it wrong ) image has changed so many times. I'm happy to have been a contributor! DennisPietras (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry about that. The reviewer pointed out that having a question in an image was pretty confusing, and I decided to drop the question-containing bitmaps rather than try to get them question-free. I think the result is better anyway, and I'm very pleased to get another major evolutionary biology article up to GA, given that people have been saying that the whole area of evolutionary biology is just a bunch of jargon. Coevolution is in the queue too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Speciation

Thank you for your edits to the various speciation-related articles. I have been working tirelessly to fix up these articles as they are in desperate need of attention. I completed Peripatric speciation and Parapatric speciation. Currently I am working on a new Allopatric speciation article as, in my opinion, the current one is abysmal. Over at User:Azcolvin429/speciation developments is my draft. Feel free to work on it with me if you'd like. Just leave comments or additions on the draft page itself, as it's a work in progress. I plan on incorporating some of the existing material while adding a wealth of new information. I have about 150 journal articles to read through and a couple of books. Cheers! Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 21:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I was embarrassed by the whole area of evolutionary biology. I've brought a few to GA status. Good luck with the speciations, I'll keep an eye. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I am as well. Glad to hear you fixed some up. Hopefully I can do that with some of the speciation-related articles. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 00:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Tick

On 28 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tick, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a tick finds a potential host by detecting its breath and body odors, or by sensing its vibrations or changes in temperature? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tick. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tick), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 00:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Living things in culture

ref 104 is broken, plus, .ru url extension is Russia, not Serbia. Script in the ref looks Russian too. HalfGig talk 01:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Living things in culture

The article Living things in culture you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Living things in culture for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HalfGig -- HalfGig (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aristotle's biology

The article Aristotle's biology you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aristotle's biology for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shaded0 -- Shaded0 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

History of agriculture

Pulse isn't linked. It should link to Pulse (legume) but that redirects to legume. I suggest linking it to legume or just change all its instances to legume. HalfGig talk 23:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Pulse is a well-recognised term for the seeds as food, and legume isn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You may get some ideas from Three Sisters (agriculture). HalfGig talk 23:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Curiously I went there yesterday, but without feeling inspired. Feel free to use it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yehudi lights

The article Yehudi lights you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yehudi lights for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For rescuing a stub. Bearian (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind thought. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Say Erythranthe

So how do you pronounce this?

• HEIR EE THAN THE
• UHR EE THANT HE

etc??? HalfGig talk 13:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• @User:HalfGig: I speak a little holiday Demotic and did Classical with an English accent a long time ago. I say E RYTH RAN "THI" or near offer. I really don't suggest you put in a pronunciation bit, it's not worth it, honestly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't want to put in pronunciation, I don't know IPC, just when I read it, I don't know how to mentally say it. So it's like:

• E (as in "see")
• RYTH (as in "writh", short i)
• RAN (as in "ran" away)
• THI (as in "Thigh") ?? HalfGig talk 13:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem demonstrated perfectly. No, I'd say the E as Brit. Eng. "Echo" and "THI" as in "THIn". If you really want to do this, consult a good dictionary and then ask a pronunciation geek to format it for you in IPC. All other pronuncation formats are long-winded, confusing, and error-prone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've decided how to mentally say it, even though it's probably a bit off. HalfGig talk 13:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Flea

On 13 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Flea, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the flea (pictured) was illustrated by Robert Hooke in 1665 in his pioneering book Micrographia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flea. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Flea), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Bear

How about bear for GA? LittleJerry (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly a better target. It needs quite a bit of rewriting, more/better refs, and a cladogram. And the human section needs surgery. Are you inviting Cwmhiraeth? I'd be glad to do this one as a team. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I will be happy to join you if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Then let's all go for it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I will be gone for four days starting Wednesday, so I wouldn't be able to dive in fully until after that. LittleJerry (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm back and I see you guys have improved the article a lot. I hope to work more on communication and diet in the next couple of days. LittleJerry (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Glad you're back in business. The material on reproduction is still poorly cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'll work on that section too! LittleJerry (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Just wanting for my book to come. LittleJerry (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth - I've added another cladogram which I think makes the article clearer (and better looking!). We haven't said anything much about parasites and diseases ... I wonder if you feel like doing a bit of your usual excellent research on that topic? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I will see what I can find. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW we mention and cite Trichinella in the 'as food' section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll work on diet soon. In the meantime, I think the conservation section should mention the status of the species like the lede does. LittleJerry (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry, Cwmhiraeth: In position now, with IUCN ref, but the rest needs citing. Help appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Will do tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry, Cwmhiraeth: we seem to be very close to being ready for GAN now. Any last tweaks to be done? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to do a little more polishing first, but we will have to wait for Grasshopper to finish at FAC before we nominate, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I will be working on diet today and maybe tomorrow. LittleJerry (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm pretty much done. I do think the culture section should mention Paddington Bear and a few notable bears in other media like Yogi. LittleJerry (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry, Cwmhiraeth: Well, since Grasshopper is now out of the way, we're ready to nominate... Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It amazes me how quick you are to discover these things (Grasshopper FA). I'll have a last look at Bear now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry and Chiswick Chap: Some of the books are lacking page numbers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry, Cwmhiraeth: I've sorted several page issues, and marked the rest "pages needed" and "citation needed" as appropriate; especially in Bear#Size and Bear#Distribution and habitat. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure want to do since I don't have the book. Perhaps we could just have a sentence or two describing the size of the biggest species and smallest species and place it in the "morphology" section? LittleJerry (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry Choice is find another source, reword, or find book (...WP:LIBRARY...). There may be zoologist editors who can help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, Any ideas? LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I will deal with the distribution/habitat bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, @LittleJerry, if sourcing is difficult I suggest we cut the "size" section down to, er, size, and say briefly what we can readily cite. I've had a go using National Geographic figures, which are unexciting but reliable. I'd say the section was actually usable as it is, but feel free to improve it with more specific sources if you wish. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There is still #35, "Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Volume 1: Carnivores." which has no page numbers, but it is down to 3 uses now. @LittleJerry: Is the information cited in your bears book? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, we can replace the ref, find the book and the pages, or cut the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I think all we need to do now is give accessdates for the last couple cites. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

LittleJerry: I've formatted refs until square-eyed. There is however still a page missing in the Reproduction section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry, Cwmhiraeth: many thanks for all the work. We are now good to go, but I thought to do a search for "ursidae sexual maturity" and found Animal Diversity Web (Univ. of Michigan) which has a fully-cited section on reproduction, with this on maturity:

Sexual maturity occurs at from to 3 to 6.5 years old, usually occurring later in males. Growth continues after sexual maturity. Males may not reach their adult size until 10-11 years old. Females reach adult sizes usually around 5 years old. (Chorn and Hoffman, 1978; DeMaster and Stirling, 1981; Fitzgerald and Krausman, 2002; Lariviere, 2001; Nowak, 1991; Pasitchniak-Arts, 1993; Rogers, 1999)

The paper refs are at the end of the web page. I guess only 2 or 3 of the papers are about maturity, the rest about the rest of reproduction and life-cycle. If you're interested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Good, well done all. The papers mentioned are mostly about individual species. I should think we are ready to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: you'll see I've put the prev. image back, it's pretty good, definitely on topic, and doesn't show the compound and walls of a zoo enclosure, which I find more than somewhat off-putting actually. As for continuing to edit (and to require reverts), we are now weeks into the GAN period, and this could be interpreted by a severe reviewer as a sign of instability. Maybe time to, er, bear the situation as it is....... have a great weekend. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you ping me when/if someone takes up the review, as I sometimes miss the fact that a review has started when I am not the nominator. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Check out my recent edits to the short-faced bear article. The study cited is not very representative and others have disputed it. LittleJerry (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

In general we should always prefer review articles, that survey all the primary research in the field, to particular primary research papers that may always be wrong, biased, or incomplete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

But the article cited is not a review article, its a primary research article. One whose incompleteness has been noted by more recent articles. I think we should at least change the sentence to fairly reflect the research. Cwmhiraeth, a third opinion? LittleJerry (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. If it's wrong, change it at once, no need to discuss. But we do need to have the article stable, and soon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Medicinal plants

The ref format here is widely inconsistent. To get GA it'll need an standard format for each type of reference. HalfGig talk 14:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@HalfGig, ok, well, the immediate priority is to get the uncited parts up to speed, i.e. either cited or deleted or (if a third option is allowed with 'either'!) reconstructed with new words and refs as needed. We can (then) reformat refs as needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

True but if the final format is decided now the new ones can be put into that rather than having to go back and redo them. HalfGig talk 14:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@HalfGig Please let's not wrangle. Most of the article is already reffed so we are where we are. I've checked the refs and nearly all were in cite book /cite journal templates, which is pretty healthy. I don't use "location="; books and journals don't need an accessdate; I use Surname, Forename if available and Surname, A. B. initials punctuated and spaced if not; I try to spell out journal names. I normally don't try to use ref=harv unless there's pressing reason. I try to get rid of "Further reading" lists again unless there's very good reason. If there's anything else you urgently need to know, just ask. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I would never try to wrangle with you or Sminth. HalfGig talk 14:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@HalfGig: I've tidied up the refs a bit, I think they'll do for now. Most of the remaining uncited claims are in Medicinal_plants#Phytochemistry, if you feel like having a go at them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:THUMBSIZE

Sure, I'm only ratcheting the size down when doing so obscures no important details of the image. I assume the =1.35 limit is there for some kind of reason, though, if it's singled out in image use policy - presumably it's to stop an article's lede from becoming awkward to read on a small browser window? --McGeddon (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

And ah, moving the painting out of the Fish in culture lede was intended to avoid the suggestion that the article was about culture purely in the sense of art - I didn't think it quite reassured the reader that they'd "arrived at the right page". Birds in culture's falconers and Insects in culture's beetle on a human hand are better for showing people interacting meaningfully with the animal, but I couldn't find anything offhand for fish. --McGeddon (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. The small browser window thing is well-intentioned, but (for example) the Wikipedia app on Android scales images DOWN to fit the screen, and if they start smaller they end up EVEN SMALLER, hardly much of a help, and they can't be clicked on in that context to expand them either. The fish image is both fishy by subject and, as a painting, certainly cultural, so it fits very easily into the slot. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the app, that does sound odd behaviour. If the =1.35 advice is wildly out of date and only applies to 2007 browsers, perhaps it's worth updating the policy.

A still life of some fish flapping around on a beach is a perfect illustration for "fish in art", it's just less good for "fish in human culture" - the reader may be faintly surprised to learn that the article is about a broader subject than just art, once they start reading it. Any objections if I swap it out for File:Bartolomeo Passerotti - The Fishmonger's Shop - WGA17072.jpg, which has some people in it? --McGeddon (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I've already provided 2 images in the lead, one the painting, another of a trawler (more arty vs more practical, to cover all bases). If you want to move the current lead image to the gallery and use your fish, go ahead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. I'd say the Passerotti also covers the practical base, really, being a painting of a commercial fish stall. --McGeddon (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Economic importance of bacteria

Thanks, happy to tack on to your useful edits where we can. Thanks for cleaning it up too. Let me know if I can assist further. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Medicinal plants

• Ref 66 - neither original nor archive link work anymore

HalfGig talk 11:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@HalfGig, @Sminthopsis84 - yeah, zapped it. Rididulous for the EU, by the way. On the topic of medicinal plants, I see there's also Herbalism (aka Herbal medicine) and Phytotherapy, all overlapping rather a lot, with a proposed merger from last October that seems to have stalled, the merger link doesn't go anywhere but there's a fragmentary discussion at talk:Phytotherapy. What do you think shd be done about it? The distinctions between Plants for medicine (Medicinal plants) / Traditional use of plants as medicines (Herbalism) / More or less evidence-based use of plants as medicines (Phytotherapy) might be just about tenable, but personally I have to keep focussing on it or I lose the plot. So, 1 article, 2 articles, or all 3? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Herbalism seems to be a more detailed article of the "in practice" section of Medicinal plants, so add Herbalism to the further info link already in "in practice". I think I'd go with Phytotherapy merge into Herbalism, leaving a redirect. HalfGig talk 12:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Phytotherapy isn't an impressive article, starting with the use of that first citation, so merging it would be an improvement. I can see the argument for keeping Herbalism as the approaches and Medicinal plants as the materials. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@HalfGig, @Sminthopsis84: Ok, then, I've (re)proposed the merger, do with it what you will. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

OTRS approval

See update on commons. The photographer released it under CC4. I sent in OTRS. The ticket is 2017022210017951 and the email subject is Erythranthe peregrina. Do you know someone with OTRS access to process and approve this? Thank you HalfGig talk 20:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No, you just go to the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team and a qualified volunteer will handle it for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Tansy beetle

Howdy. Having done much more with the whole GA shebang than I, I'd appreciate if you'd make any suggestions to add to Tansy beetle to push it up to GA. I've happily taken it from Start to B class and want to see it through.Zakhx150 (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think it has a good chance and it seems to cover the bases pretty well. A reviewer might pick up on the UK emphasis and ask you to globalise it a bit. I tend to avoid single-species articles in general, as we still have very poor articles on many major groups of animals including the great majority of families. Chrysomelidae (leaf beetles), for instance, is the family containing the tansy beetle: it's a large and important group, but it's still at Start class. Chiswick Chap (talk)

(talk page stalker) @Zakhx150: Ref 33 is a free formatted ref, not in cite web like the other web refs. HalfGig talk 12:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bear

The article Bear you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bear for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Medicinal plants

The article Medicinal plants you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Medicinal plants for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Congrats! HalfGig talk 12:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Monnow Bridge

Dear Chiswick Chap, thanks for the Turner for the above. I don't suppose I could interest you in picking up the GA Review? It's languishing at present and I'm very keen to crack on to Peer Review and beyond. If I can return the favour, I'll happily do so. My interests, primarily architecture, history and politics, don't, I'm afraid, match the breadth of your own, but Victorian architecture is my speciality so we may one day find a match. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I was just deciding to do it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful. I am hugely grateful and looking forward to getting stuck in. KJP1 (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. Whenever I can return the favour...KJP1 (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, it was a pleasure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Crop diversity

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Very kind of you, and a magnificently diverse harvest of traditional French apples. I was lucky enough to see just such a display, and very valuable it is in the face of agritech's monocultures. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Crop diversity

The article Crop diversity you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Crop diversity for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Brood parasite

Hi, I've blocked the isp for two weeks initially. Let me know if the problem recurs and I'll slap on a longer block. Don't get involved in a edit war again, even if you are in the right, just let me know. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, will do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Following this from a different address I've semi-protected for a month now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Bear has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Chiswick Chap. Bear, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Russian military deception

The article Russian military deception you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Russian military deception for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If you don't plan on submitting a hook to DYK, please let me know as I'd love to jump on the opportunity. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:: That would be perfect, please go ahead and do enjoy it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

compatibility gene

Hi Chiswick Chap, Thanks. Wikipedia is a wonderful thing and I'm so so grateful that you put my book there! Thanks so much! Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.214.148 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dan, you signed a book for my daughter at Imperial! We do our best here, an amazing crew of volunteers. Glad you like the result. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, Hope all's well. Here's my new one if interested: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beautiful-Cure-Harnessing-Natural-Defences/dp/1847923739/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.214.116 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Certainly overdue, but for studious work in getting Beetle to GA-nominee standard, I thank you on behalf of Wikiproject Beetles. Zakhx150 (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

		The Golden Stag Beetle Barnstar
		For contributions to Wikiproject Beetles, I award you this Barnstar. Congratulations!

Wow, thank you very much! That's very kind, and quite unexpected. I'm glad the article has been appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Evolution of snake venom

Greetings, Chiswick Chap. I just nominated Evolution of snake venom for GA status, and it occurs to me that you would be perfect person to review it, especially this is the first time I am attempting to take a biology article through GAN and could use an experienced reviewer. If you have the time/inclination, it would be much appreciated. Vanamonde (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be delighted. Hope to get to it tomorrow! Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mecoptera

The article Mecoptera you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mecoptera for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Russian military deception

On 18 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Russian military deception, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2014 annexation of Crimea by "little green men" was typical of a long history of Russian military deception dating back to the Battle of Kulikovo? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Russian military deception. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Russian military deception), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Congratulations on completing your long slog to the GA and DYK for Maskirovka. Given the resistance and apparent ideology of some of us, it was a miraculous outcome. I gave up long ago. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. It was a bit of a surprise to see just how embattled some corners of Wikipedia are. Perhaps I've led a sheltered life! It was really nice today to see a series of constructive edits from several people. And to get a barnstar into the bargain! Great stuff. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I got fed up with the Maskirovka deniers. I thought them trolls, perhaps from another part of the world. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beetle

The article Beetle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Beetle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shyamal -- Shyamal (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Bear

On 22 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bear, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that bears are classified as carnivores, but most are omnivorous and the panda (pictured) is almost entirely vegetarian? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bear. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bear), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson

The article D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Davidkinnen -- Davidkinnen (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Convert from powerpoint to svg

Your diagrams are fantastic, thanks so much for your work on them. It would be nice if we could get them directly to vector format. It should be possible to get from Powerpoint into .svg format by exporting to .pdf, importing the .pdf to Inkscape then saving as .svg (per Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Resources/PDF_conversion_to_SVG). Another possibility is using LibreOffice (which is free) to read .ppt and export to .svg. Please let me know if you would like any assistance in trying to convert the diagrams. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds good, until one tries it. The saving of .PPT as .PDF may sometimes work, but it fails completely for sets of pages, and can foul up even on single pages, all the labels collapsing into a single column and so on. Inkscape is a dog to work with, though useful for minor edits. LibreOffice looks enticing but is only partially compatible with Office and is a substantial lump of software to keep around. And so on. Conversion is only a minor benefit, and as we have seen, whether automated or not it comes with a variety of costs. I'd rather get on with writing, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

AfD discussion on A-CEEI

As per your suggestion at the AfD discussion, I have moved the page to [[Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes]. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sincere apologies

First thing's first, we are really sincerely sorry for all this inconvenience and callow ruckus we've caused within this Wikipedia community. We know you're probably thinking why the hell are we bothering you right now, but we just wanted to let you know that there was another random editor nearby who just started editing. This seemingly foolish editor refused to make an acccount and just wanted to see how fast a user can edit. There has also been a handful number of other users who were trying to start this ludicrous competition. As educators, we've already gave them the last straw so luckily for you editors, this annoyance will most likely never happen again. There are also a good number of editors in our area that want to improve this encyclopedia, bear in mind. 96.246.193.252 (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, so you have some students ... it might be an idea to ask Wikipedia administrators to impose a voluntary "schoolblock" so that people with your IP address(es) are required to log in (i.e. to create and use named personal accounts) rather than editing anonymously. But it seems you have the matter in hand. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Plant epithet

The article Plant epithet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Plant epithet for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Animal epithet

The article Animal epithet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Animal epithet for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for the patience and hardwork on reviewing Agent Orange. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Uptoniga (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Odonata navbox

I think you might be a good person to give me some advice, please?

The taxomony in the Odonata navbox Template:Odonata is a bit of a mess, probably out-of-date, and at odds with information in the taxonomy templates. Do you think it would be okay if I edited it and brought it more into line with the taxonomy in the taxonomy templates?

The reason I'm asking you, is that you were the last person to edit it (back in 2015), and have been around a while; any changes I make will affect quite a lot of pages; and I suspect if I wrote something on the Template_talk:Odonata page then nobody would see it. John Tann (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You are right to wonder if it's a good idea. Let's take the statements one at a time. The navbox doesn't look a mess, as it tidily reflects a view of the phylogenetic and taxonomic hierarchy. I made only a small change so am not a/the main author. The taxonomy templates are a mystery to me, as they evolve largely without citations or visible discussion; and since many articles do not yet use automatic taxoboxes, their hierarchies are often inconsistent, whether out of date or ahead of themselves. They and navboxes indeed affect many pages. One thing I am sure of is that we should not attempt to keep templates and navboxes "up to the minute" with the latest primary research papers - such things are frequently contradicted, which is why we try to follow good secondary sources, review papers, which follow some years behind. Therefore, blindly trying to follow taxo-templates is a mistake, worse than a waste of time, as it's likely actually wrong and against policy. The taxonomy used in navbars (and templates) ought to be, in a word, rather conservative. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave it then, unless I find something glaringly silly. John Tann (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plant epithet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swedish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Phytotherapy to herbalism

Seems like the discussion on the merger has had enough fermentation, with a clear majority for merger. Time to proceed? Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zefr thank goodness! Yes, I should say go right ahead and do it now. Well done all round. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of agriculture

The article History of agriculture you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of agriculture for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ProgrammingGeek -- ProgrammingGeek (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

r.e. Teredo navalis‎/ locomotory organ

hi, r.e. your reversion of that link... maybe take a look at the discussion here in Talk:locomotory organ and chime in, - there's citations that confirm the term 'exists', but also confusion as to what it *does* and *doesn't* mean. Does this suggest that there is scope for either wikipedia or wiktionary to clear up the scope of this term? Citations found by User:HopsonRoad confirm the context in which I remember it ("locomotory organs = legs etc"); however I also can see strictly speaking legs might not actually be *organs*. MfortyoneA (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty unsatisfactory term (if it is one - basically it's two common words jammed together descriptively), but it seems you can find a source for nearly anything; I really don't think it's worth an article. The addition to the article is in the lead, which is the wrong place, and it's not good, but I've other things on just now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I accept it might not be worth an article, but what about a wiktionary definition. It may strictly be an 'unsatisfactory term', however the links reveal exactly why I've got it in my head: many people are taught it in school. A definition can clear up any confusion that people have been left with. I think this would be preferable to cluttering up the flow of any existing article (I think the other user did this as a temporary compromise) MfortyoneA (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not, you can simply write one there. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Chiswick Chap, Thank you very much for your comment in defence of the Draft:Leeds University Library's Cookery Collection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imogen at Leeds Uni Library (talk • contribs) 10:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to reiterate: thanks so much for the help, advice and corrections. I'll make the changes you suggested. Imogen at Leeds Uni Library (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad to be able to help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Biological pest control

The article Biological pest control you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Biological pest control for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Leeds University Library's Cookery Collection has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Leeds University Library's Cookery Collection. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Crop diversity

Hope you are having a nice day. We want you to know we are not trying to make you feel personally offended by the changes. We were given a list of articles for this project that wikipedia had deemed to be in need of improvement and clarity. As you know this is a class assignment and while your way of improving this article would have been helpful weeks ago, my partner and myself are under deadline which is tomorrow. Our professor has to see changes and improvements to the article in order for us to receive a grade. We are trying to take your comments as well as other editors into consideration as we make changes.- Kemurphy

@Kemurphy - I'm not offended in the slightest, but thank you for your concern. I didn't know you were under quite so much time pressure, however - it certainly makes discussion difficult, and I'd think that professors ought to encourage dialogue from the outset as a vital component of all project work, not just here. However, since we are now here, if I can help you this evening I certainly will. What are you hoping to add? The key is a clear idea of what you want to say, followed by good sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

We are working to make the article flow a little better because many of the sentences can come across as confusing and awkward.In short we want to make easier for the average reader to understand this topic. We are working on finding new sources to possibly add to the article to help provide the reader with more definitions of key terms. My partner (User:SunnyLexi) has the first half of the article in her sandbox right now and it has most of the changes we want to make in it now. There is one sentence in () that is a possibility for replacing the sentence after it. The second half of the article is in my sandbox with only a few changes with more to come around 5pm. We are required to live with the article by tomorrow. So if you have comments on it let us know before tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemurphy (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Um, it's not easy to guess from the copied material what you people are intending to change, though it looks as if SunnyLexi wants to delete some of the boldface names for kinds of diversity in the first paragraph - these certainly don't make the article hard to read. I'm a bit surprised not to see any citations yet, I assume you're keeping all the existing ones. I'll do my best to have a look early tomorrow morning (guess that's before you guys will get up across the pond), and do a little tidying up for you if need be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Snow camouflage

The article Snow camouflage you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Snow camouflage for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Leeds University Library's Cookery Collection has been accepted

Leeds University Library's Cookery Collection, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of Animals

The article History of Animals you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of Animals for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pbsouthwood -- Pbsouthwood (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Monnow Bridge

Dear Chiswick Chap, I hope that you're keeping well. Following a Peer Review, I've nominated the bridge at FAC here, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monnow Bridge/archive1. I'd be most grateful for any input. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A short note to thank you very much indeed for your input at FAC, as well as your earlier GAR. I hope I've addressed the issues, including removing the plinth and footnoting the old bag Mrs Bagnall-Oakeley, but let me know if I've missed anything. As before, the article's much improved for your input, for which many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thrips

The article Thrips you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thrips for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shyamal -- Shyamal (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aggressive mimicry

The article Aggressive mimicry you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aggressive mimicry for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SparklingPessimist -- SparklingPessimist (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you very much for your work on Leeds University Library's Cookery Collection and helping to get it accepted. Imogen at Leeds Uni Library (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coevolution

The article Coevolution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Coevolution for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems that we meet again. Most of the articles nominated for GA that I would be interested in reviewing seem to have been nominated by you. I can live with that. I expect a rather busy weekend, so if I appear to be inactive it is probably that I am actually excessively active, but with something else. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, both for the review and for the compliment. I find looking at the GAN list depressing as there's hardly anything there that I want to read. I keep hoping someone will take on one of the thousands of serious topics that need a decent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Living things

Hi, I want to say that I'm sorry that I probably came off as really aggressive and impolite when we talked. I know I have a tendency to do so sometimes when I'm stressed or in a bad mood. Sorry. I acted pretty immature.★Trekker (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very good of you to acknowledge it. Apology accepted. Happy editing... Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Teleology in biology

The article Teleology in biology you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Teleology in biology for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pbsouthwood -- Pbsouthwood (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Feather Barnstar
		For your latest new article Teleology in biology. Your contributions are becoming increasingly impressive. – Epipelagic (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That's very kind of you! Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Bats Task Force

Hi there, I see that you are very much involved in the bat page. Thanks a lot for that! I just wanted to inform you about the newly created WikiProject Mammals/Bats Task Force. Many people involved in the bat conservation in the world will soon join this task force, thanks to specific events organised in Europe but not only. However, most of these people are not users of wikipedia so far, and will need support from Wikipedian as you! So feel free to join if you want. Merci d'avance! Fulup56 (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Coloration evidence for natural selection

Posted on my talk page in error. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Hello, PeterChiswick Chap - I'm enjoying reading your new article Coloration evidence for natural selection. Would you mind if I made a few suggestions? Feel free to follow or ignore them as you see fit.

1) In the last sentence of the lead, I suggest using commas rather than semi-colons. Semi-colons are a bit distracting visually and tend to slow down the reader;

No, semi-colons are correct in a list after a colon; and why a ";" mark should seem slower than a "," must be down to the individual reader.

2) in the Coloration evidence for natural selection#Context section, you have the following sentence:

• This made his theory vulnerable, and biologists looked for clear evidence that natural selection actually occurred.

We Brits use a causal "and" in this way, and we find explicit causality verbs offputting: "It started to rain, and I put my waterproofs on." is in our eyes far better than "It started to rain, and, motivated by the conviction that the increasing rate of precipitation heralded the discomfort of having my absorbent clothing wetted, increasing the weight I would have to carry and likely causing chafing as the thickened fibres would rub against my skin as I walked, I considered my options and decided to protect myself by unpacking my waterproofs from my rucksack and to dress in them, affording myself protection from the rain."

The connection between the second half of this sentence to the first half is tenuous. I recommend strengthening it a bit. How about something like one of these?

• This made his theory vulnerable, and biologists continued to search for clear evidence...
• This made his theory vulnerable, motivating biologists to search for clear evidence...
• This made his theory vulnerable, spurring biologists to search for clear evidence...

Clearly you had no difficulty understanding the sentence.

3) The last sentence in the "Context" section is:

• Animal coloration, readily observable, soon provided strong and independent lines of evidence, from camouflage, mimicry and aposematism, that natural selection was indeed at work.

I'm wondering if the fact that animal coloration was readily observable was one of the main factors in its providing "strong and independent lines of evidence". If so, you could add "because it was" before "readily observable" to show this relationship.

No, it just made it easy to observe, a reason for choosing (or just happening) to observe it. There's no reason to suppose that selection applies more strongly to coloration than to anything else.

4) In the section Coloration evidence for natural selection#Snow camouflage, what you have is good. I'm just wondering:

(a) if you could add a brief explanation of "cryptic", as it is used here, for the non-expert reader, and

Wikilinked. It's basically a synonym for (many kinds of) camouflage.

(b) if it would help to add a bit explaining that the white color in winter (and darker colors in summer) help to camouflage the animal, thus raising its chances of avoiding being killed by a predator, and continue to live and reproduce, which in turn tends to pass along the trait that allowed the animal to live. (I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination; I just thought that just a little more explanation about the relationship between the camouflage and survival of the fittest and evolution would help.)  – Corinne (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, added a footnote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm so sorry I posted this on the wrong page. It was very late when I saw the exchange on Sminthospsis84's talk page, and I guess I wasn't thinking or seeing right. Congratulations on a very nice article.  – Corinne (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Multi-scale camouflage

The article Multi-scale camouflage you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Multi-scale camouflage for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy (biology)

Hi! It was really a matter to rectify that few of the sources in the article were not reliable. There really were some flaky sources, now that I realize after having edited the Columbidae article. I will try removing those from the taxonomy article and put better sources, instead. Apologies for you having to take the trouble of rectifying the sources in the taxonomy article, for a GA is meant to have reliable sources. I was not aware of what exactly constituted a reliable source; however, now I am much aware of that fact, thanks to the Columbidae article and your response on the talk page of the taxonomy article. I will take care of it, from the next time. However, how does one know if sources like Encyclopedia Britannica are also not so reliable? It does seem fairly reliable, so how does one know if to cite it. Also, can you just have a look at the Columbidae article, and say if it looks good to be a GA? If possible, can you as well do a GAR for it? I might know quite a bit more if you provide your insights on the article. Thank you in advance, and also for your pointing out of mistakes in the taxonomy article. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, these things take a bit of getting used to. On the EB, my personal view, shared by many editors, is that we really shouldn't use EB at all, any more than we should cite Wikipedia, but if we have to then it should be minimal and only when finding anything better is proving very difficult. For example, on a matter of history, a thorough review by a professional historian who cites all his sources would be far to be preferred. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you very much for making me ascertain that. :) I will take care of it from the next time. Hope I did not give you too much trouble. :P Also, any more suggestions by you would be really cool, from time to time, as it would make me edit the articles, better. Also, can you say if Columbidae looks good for a GA? Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly looking better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That's really very sweet of you, I'm not terribly medical but I guess biology sort of counts! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Mutationism

Hey great edits on the history of evolutionary thought. Would you add a line or two about Mutationism to the alternatives to Darwinism article? It was sort of revived recently by Masatoshi Nei. 82.132.245.236 (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Also emergent evolution could be added. 82.132.245.236 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that Mutationism is the same as, or a continuation of, Saltationism; while Emergent evolution fits neatly into the kind of Orthogenesis advocated by the likes of Teilhard de Chardin, who indeed wrote at length about noogenesis, the emergence of mind. I've added both to the article in these places. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Citations and NPOV

Hello. I trust that you realise that having a citation and being written in a neutral manner are two entirely separate things. Your edit summary which included the text "it certainly does not fall foul of WP:NPOV given the citation" implied that you do not. In case you cannot see the problem with your edit, try mentally replacing the word "influential" with "intelligent", "mediocre", or "unconvincing". In each case, you would be presenting an opinion as if it was fact, in a way which very obviously violates NPOV. 109.180.164.3 (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We can certainly present what a source says in Wikipedia's voice, when that source is very reliable, and when there are no contradictory sources of equal weight. Particularly when the term in question is "influential", which is notequivalent to "intelligent" or "mediocre". The latter two are value judgements; the former says that something had an influence on subsequent work, and as such is a verifiable hypothesis. Take a look at WP:YESPOV. Ideally we should have multiple sources here, but the statement itself is not really a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, stalker Vanamonde, I couldn't have said it better or more eloquently. This is about Spandrel (biology) where there is no doubt whatever that the founding paper was highly influential. Whether it was wise or right for the authors to argue a structuralist (non-Darwinian) case is of course quite another matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please can we continue this at the article's talk page. Moving there now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Biological pest control

On 12 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Biological pest control, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that proteins from a bacterium toxic to pests have been incorporated into crop plants for biological pest control? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Biological pest control. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Biological pest control), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Homology (biology)

The article Homology (biology) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Homology (biology) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aircorn -- Aircorn (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Greek literature

I am still confused about your GA review of ancient Greek literature and I am trying to understand what problems you saw so that I can fix them. You stated on the review page that the article is "is plainly not ready for GAN," which makes it sound like the article is not even close to being GA quality, but the only feedback you gave me was that the final section needs expansion, along with several "citation needed" tags. This is my first GA nomination and I will admit that I do not completely understand the criteria; I have reviewed them several times over, but every time someone refers to them, each person seems to interpret them much stricter than they are actually stated. You say that the article needs "careful analysis, reading around the subject, fuller coverage, and precise citation," but that is extremely vague and does not really give me any idea of what specifically is wrong with it. Saying "errors and exaggerated claims are being discovered" is a bit of an exaggeration in itself. The statements I removed were not strictly wrong; they were just not neutral or overly vague. Furthermore, they were all minute matters of rewording; in one instance, the only problem with the sentence was a single word.

You made some comment about "citations are being copied in from other articles." Is there something wrong with copying citations from other articles? If they work to cover the same or similar statements in those articles, I see no reason why they should be inadequate when used elsewhere. You also remarked that my changes in response to your criticism were evidence that the article was unstable. The article went for over a month after being nominated with only a few minor changes. The changes that I made last night were all in response to the criticism that you gave. If the article is unstable now, how is it supposed to become stable? Does implementing changes suggested by the reviewer somehow make the article unstable? In that case, should I avoid implementing your suggested changes altogether?

When I asked for clarification you commented that you were not concerned about a few citations but rather "the article's incompleteness." Were you only referring to the final "Legacy" section, or are there other sections that still require further expansion? I thought that the rest of the article was essentially complete. I could not find any information that needed to be there that was missing. I am trying to understand what else about the article needs improvement. If you could provide any more feedback, it would be immensely helpful. You could at least tell me if the article is close to meeting the Good Article standards or not. I am not angry with you at all; I am simply genuinely confused and trying to understand where I should go from here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry to have hurt your feelings, and I am reluctant to go into a discussion at this stage, especially about details which will only provoke argument, as if your entry above does not already demonstrate that sufficiently.

However, I will say that I am very doubtful that rapidly copying in citations from elsewhere on Wikipedia is as safe and reliable as you seem to imagine; unfortunately, work on Wikipedia in the past has not always been as careful as it should have been. It would be far better to take a step back, consider why there were uncited statements in the article and what that said about how carefully the article may have been constructed, whether the statements were reliable or could have been better phrased, and then how they should be cited - in other words, an article with numerous uncited statements is perhaps not as robust as it ought to be.

Much the same goes for the missing section on the impact on literature. This is, as you surely know, a major topic, and not one to be rushed through in a day or two. You might care to look at the Belknap The Classical Tradition - a 1,000 page book by Grafton, Most and Settis, to consider whether you can summarize it in a paragraph.

As I said already, I am sorry for your feelings. I hope that you will now look at the suggestions made here and use them to improve the article, for which I wish you good fortune. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It was not really that you hurt my feelings; it was more that I was just confused about some of the things you said. Once again, thank you very much for this response. I cannot say if it will help much in the course of improving the article, but at least it is something to go off of. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Grasshopper

I'm certainly not going to fall out over your revert, but the real reason to replace was that the existing image is boring. An encyclopaedia should be illustrated by an interesting photo. I'm not sure why you think the coloration is atypical, nor why you say it is immature. It appears to be an adult female to me, though I am not an authority on orthoptera. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. The wings are well short of the end of the abdomen so it certainly looks like a young'un. There are quite a few brightly-coloured grasshoppers, generally the aposematic ones, which I believe are a definite minority. The 'boring' image shows quite a lot of the anatomy clearly, the subject fills the space available on the image, and it is actually preparing to lay eggs, so there's even some interesting behaviour going on, actually. The other image is on a twig, which is perhaps less obviously a "grasshopper" habitat than open ground or grass. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, short wings = female. You haven't explained why the coloration is atypical. Of course the pretty ones are a minority. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, have been offline (phone engineer came to fix line, took down broadband, went off for weekend...) On atypical, I meant simply 'small minority', on which we appear to agree. All the best (and very glad to be able to connect), ||||

Giraffe cladogram

Would you be able to take the "external relations" cladogram of the deer article, modify it so it can fit within the text and paste in in the evolution subsection of the giraffe article? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

See what I can do! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Peter Brook: Historic figure or current resident?

I feel the latter understates his importance a bit. He's had a large impact on his field's history, like the others have, and I don't think being alive changes that substantially. What's done is done, and always will be. The future's another story. I'll suggest we treat him like the rest, but if you'd rather not, it's not a big deal to me. I'm not sure he still lives in Chiswick, but he might. If you're also unsure, might be best to just say he did. If you're sure, that's even better. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sure, and as a native Brit and Chiswickian, it's against my linguistic whatsit to refer to a living person as 'Historic', however splendiferously marvellous, and I don't doubt, either, that PB would feel the same. We Brits are aware that excessive understatement can be risky, but it's simply our way. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

As a native Canadian, it's against my nature to knowingly offend either neighbour's whatsit. And as as Ontarian who's driven past our Chiswick, I'm just impressed that yours still has living people, let alone notable ones. Consider it all good. Shame about the misunderstanding in Korea, though. A right spot of bother, that. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The Asa Gray review

At this point, I'd like to wait for Sminth to chime in, if she has time for wiki. I emailed her. Can we give her a few days to see if she has time and is willing to help out? HalfGig talk 19:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we're not in a rush. You might be able to work on the lead in the meantime. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alternatives to Darwinism

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alternatives to Darwinism you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of StN -- StN (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant to contribute to the discussion, not moderate it. StN (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I guessed as much. I'll consult the GA team about what to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Pop over to the Fringe thories noticeboard, someone raised a question about the title of the article. Just an FYI -- I put in my 2¢, but you probably want to weigh in. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@StN: Sorry to nitpick, but when you accidentally write something you didn't mean (including when a bot writes something in your name), you should strike the original error comment with <del></del>. I came here to notify CC of the FTN discussion, saw that Montanabw had bewten me to the punch, and saw a relatively long message and section title indicating that the article was under GA review, went to the review page and expressed my opinion, before finally being informed that (somewhere) you had stated that you did not mean to initiate a GA review. I came back here to check, and only then noticed your above retration. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll remember that. Thanks. StN (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There was a bit of confusion but we've collectively sorted it all out now, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Email

Check it. HalfGig talk 22:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

HalfGig Sorry, too sleepy, just cleared it as I thought you'd be talking here. Pse repeat. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Resent it. HalfGig talk 11:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hybrid

Hi there, so looking at the article now, as far as the Humans section go, in my opinion it looks most appropriate. I just think it is important for the Hybrid article in general to have a section talking about hybrid humans (which it now does). I'll admit though, I'm not entirely sure what you mean in the Talk section of that page. Lastly I want to apologize for bloating up the Talk section on your page here; I would have followed up on the section you created on my page, but I don't know how to "tag" users to let them know I followed up with them. If you can show me how, I will do that from now on, thanks Osh33m (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Not to worry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Science in the medieval Islamic world

The article Science in the medieval Islamic world you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Science in the medieval Islamic world for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Octopus, Lizard

In addition to bringing Lizard to GA, I've also been think of Octopus for FA. It would definitely be my last FA project and I feel I could add one more non-arthropod invertebrate. The article looks like at has an okay start. I feel we could mostly fix up and do some expanding in the biology section and add an evolution/taxonomy section. LittleJerry (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Gee, the last one, I can guess why that might be but it would be good to know. Yes, it's a good choice, a well-written article with scope for more, certainly I'll do a cladogram, and what about those octopus-women of modern myth and legend, if we can find one out of copyright, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if I want to start right away, or whether I should do this or lizard first. I have books on both but don't have then with me at the moment. As for why it would be my last, I've just been running out of steam on FACs lately. LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd certainly find either Octopus or Snake more interesting but I guess Lizard has its charms (somewhere out of sight!). Since GA takes considerably less work than FA perhaps doing more to GA level would be more fun, and arguably doing more to improve the 'pedia? I find the statistic that only 1 article in 160 or so is "good" (read, "decent, acceptable, recommend it to a friend") quite shocking, and would much like to have all the major Biology articles "good" - we're nearly there with the major groups of insects, between Cwmhiraeth and me, for instance. But we can only hope to bring a very few of those to FA in a lifetime, so while I'm happy to help I'm not surprised you find "steam" limiting for the FA approach. Just my thoughts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I choose lizard mainly because the article is so underdeveloped, which is unacceptable for a widespread group of animals. LittleJerry (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll lend a hand, but I do hope we can do Octopus as well! BTW both Snake and Octopus are 1 million articles, which Lizard is not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but like I told Cwmhiraeth. I won't be able to commit to lizard for a couple of weeks. LittleJerry (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I've taken a look and added a cladogram. Almost everything in the Evolution and phylogeny section was broken, uncited, or just plain wrong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, don't get to far into things relating to social behavior or communication. I would like to do that part. LittleJerry (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I may do some work on octopus this weekend. Since the article is well-developed, it may be easier to work on at this point than lizard. We could try to aim for GA. LittleJerry (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

So I'm working on an "internal system" subsection and will do a subsection on the general external body plan. Perhaps you could do a taxonomy/evolution/diversity section (replacing the meager one there already)? LittleJerry (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll see if I can improve it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll do a subsection on habitat/ecology. Would you be able to find more cites for the taxonomy section or maybe rewrite it? LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, will take a look. I think the phylogeny is pretty much ok however, and soft-bodied creatures barely fossilize. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think the fact that octopi can edit their genes belongs in this section? LittleJerry (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I saw it too. I think it belongs in Cephalopod as it also applies to squids, etc. If you want to include it, it's certainly part of their biology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If I am joining in, I would like to work on the External Characteristics section, and later the Internal Systems, but I don't want to tread on anyone's toes. For a start, I'll visit Reproduction. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll not touch 'em. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done with those sections. LittleJerry (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll expand the diet section. Chap, If your done with evolution, then could you add a section on the danger octopuses can pose to humans (such as the blue-ringed). LittleJerry (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, but the detail on venom which is needed to explain the situation is a little awkward as it's actually part of their biology, i.e. the thread of the story splits between the two sections. I suspect it's probably best as it is in the Humans section. Cwmhiraeth, what d'you think? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it amazing that a simple creature like an octopus (actually it's not a simple creature at all) could have evolved an eye with a structure so similar to that of a fish? User:LittleJerry

Convergent evolution Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we stick to the term "arms" rather than "tentacles" throughout? We need to be consistent, and in the "External characteristics" section I have distinguished between these eight arms and the feeding tentacles of squid. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry guys but 'human slightly worried by mild Octopus nibble' is probably not really news now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: The article mentions a very high blood pressure of 7 mm Hg, but a man's blood pressure is typically "120/80 mm Hg", so the figure for the octopus must be wrong if its "very high". I'm not sure who added it, but might it be 700 mm Hg? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I just remembered. I got the number from here The number given is 75 mm HG. Forget to cite this. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: I've removed a couple of claims about feeding based on exceptional, sensational, and clearly very rare cases reported popularly not scientifically. When we introduce a topic such as feeding we must focus on the main facts as reported by scientists, preferably in reliable secondary sources such as zoology textbooks and review papers. We need to begin with the major types of feeding. If octopuses take "sharks" at all it must be very small ones (say, dogfish), so we're at risk of being straightforwardly misleading there; but I'd not have thought it worth mentioning, and certainly not right up front as the first thing people will read about feeding and diet. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to expand on the digestive system. I also think there should be a mention of octopus use in science(e.g. artificial intelligence). After that I thinks its ready for GA. LittleJerry (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Added a section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this image would be useful for the feeding section. LittleJerry (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, I'm not able to save the image to my computer. I right-click and it is not an option. LittleJerry (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The setup on Flickr was a bit odd, but download was ok via the down-arrow at bottom right. However, the image was uploaded to Commons in 2010! All sorted now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Would you be able to expand on excretion and osmoregulation? I'm having trouble summarizing it from my book. If your book doesn't discuss it, there's this article. LittleJerry (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap and @Cwmhiraeth: I'm going to add in information on the ink sac. Also does anyone think we should add bits of information on species with unique characters? For example, the External characteristics section might use a couple lines on species which have body plans that differ from the norm (e.g. Umbrella octopuses, Seven-arm octopus) while the Reproduction section could include information on the eggcases of Argonauts. LittleJerry (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The inc sac needs mentioning. Odd species are interesting but we're straying into FAC territory there, not a problem specially if that's where we're headed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay we can do that later. I think its ready for GA. LittleJerry (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's go for it then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. I've been trying to list you as co-noms but it won't stay. LittleJerry (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to do some finishing touches on the article this week. Then we can submit to FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Chap and Cwmhiraeth could you guys do the rest? LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if mention of mimicking other animals should be in intelligence or defense. The FAC mentions redundancy. LittleJerry (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably no right answer; suggest defence is the more usual place, but of course it can also be an attack strategy. In the octopus's case, defence against predators seems the main reason. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you take care of the vase image. I don't know how to mark it. LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

For the vase, I believe they are saying it should be marked like this. LittleJerry (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry - I'm afraid you've lost me there. There are dozens of differences between the markups of the two files, and in most of them the vase is clearly better marked; I already added what seemed to be right and proper. If you know what's missing, please just do it rather than giving me a guessing game. Or at least spell out exactly what is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know if they wanted to format the summary box in the same way. I guess I was mistaken. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not assert you were mistaken; I said I had no idea what you were on about and couldn't guess. But honestly, if formatting a box was what they meant, they might have said so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Asa Gray

Thanks for reviewing this. It's in MUCH better shape. HalfGig talk 11:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Animal husbandry

At last I have my broadband and phone back and can return to normal editing. Anyway, I should think we have finished improving Animal husbandry. I selected it for the Core Competition but we might as well nominate it for GAN. It's a lot more comprehensive than it was! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You mean it's too late for the competition? Well, it's certainly worth nominating, and I'd say it was now a fine, well-balanced article. I'll do it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. No its not too late, the competition goes on till the end of June. I am planning on doing Anthozoa now as a second entry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Want me in or do you have to do one alone? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to join me. There are no rules, just the improvement of articles on major topics, and my "Invertebrate Zoology" has a lengthy chapter on Anthozoa. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth: I'm a bit swamped at the moment, not sure I'll be able to do much on Anthozoa, sorry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Apart from expanding the lead, do you see anything further I should do to Anthozoa? Like rearranging sections, or major omissions? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it looks amazing, a transformed article. Nice work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Science in the medieval Islamic world

Can you please standardize the citations in this article? If I'm not mistaken GA articles need to use a single citation format. I just noticed that you have Sfn mixed with named references. I think this is not allowed for GA. I'm sorry I didn't notice this during the review, but I think it should be promptly corrected. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your concern. I believe things are nowhere near as black-and-white as you suggest. There is good reason to use Sfn when a citation is used repeatedly - it saves repeating the citation when nothing but page ranges vary between refs - the only easy alternative is to use Rp: numerals actually in the text (just after the refs) which I particularly dislike. Using Sfn for everything does not make the article any more readable, but it makes the article much harder to maintain - each used-once ref has to have a used-once citation entry alongside it, and when later editors come along, they nearly always just add an ordinary ref, with or without a citation template ... it's a hiding to nothing, a lot of work with - I was going to say no benefit, but no - a negative benefit, an article that is less maintainable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

that is not a good reason to use inconsistent citation formats in an article, the general consensus seems to be that standard citation is preferable. If you dont want to correct it because it is "a lot of work", I will ask for reassessment or at least advice based on Ealdgyth's cheatsheet, which I think is a fair representation of community and reviewer consensus. (Or I will at least ask for advice about whether it should be put up for reassessment) - it was my first review and I hadnt seen this very helpful cheatsheet yet. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System: Thanks for replying. I don't think the work required is an issue, and I'm happy to do it. Just to be clear on what you are asking, which I suspect I misprised just now, it is that all the Sfn citations be replaced with #CITEREF citations? That's certainly a reasonable request. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You can use whatever citation format you want, but it should be consistent throughout the article. Though I think you should keep the page numbers even if you have to use {{rp}} - its not my favorite either but its better then nothing. there are a few other options too, like used short form named references inline with a bibliography including the full citation. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll see to it, but I do caution that there is often good reason to do things more pragmatically: policies and guidelines are there to make articles clear, readable, and maintainable; articles do not exist for the sake of policy. I certainly shan't use RP, that really would be a retrograde step. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, I don't think you are correct, you need merely to consider whether the article meets the GA criteria. See this page which mentions "the GA criteria do not require compliance with several major guidelines, including Wikipedia:Notability and the main Wikipedia:Manual of Style page." and " be careful that you do not wrongly require compliance with any guideline that is not specifically mentioned by the Good article criteria." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm wary of that so I did pass it, following WP:CITEVAR but then I saw the cheatsheet at the GA Mentor's area for new reviewers. Ealdgyth is both an admin and has 170+ plus reviews. I have 7. Also, I know the basics of our policies, but I think admins know better how the policies are applied to different situations, so I would tend to defer to these helpful guides for new reviewers. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System: You passed it wisely, cautiously, and correctly. As Cwmhiraeth has pointed out, you have also passed it according to the GA criteria. Guides and cheatsheets are quick bits of advice, but no more than that: they aren't mandatory. I'm happy to simplify the referencing which as I've said is a reasonable request, but I am very busy just now and will have to balance it with priorities at home, work, and other WP projects. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth left a note on my talk confirming that consistent citations are not a requirement for GA and that not everything on the cheat sheet is required to pass GA so it's up to you if you want to update or not. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll standardise the sfn thingy when I get a moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For improving Tuberculosis in popular culture Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

That's really nice of you, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Cladogram for Elephant

Another success! I'll probably take a wikibreak soon (and maybe then work on Lizard for GA). Before then, I was wondering if you could create a cladogram of Proboscidea based on this image which comes from this article. I could use it for elephant. Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! And I hope you enjoy your break. Meanwhile, I'll see what I can do for Proboscidea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:The Tombs of Atuan/GA1

Since you reviewed the first volume: interested? Vanamonde (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks a big bunch for viewing the article a number of times and improving it! Also, thanks many more times for your inputs! Could you check Talk:Desert cottontail too? As Desert cottontail has the gallery which seems to have many removable images. However, we need a consensus on it, as pocketthis does not seem to understand Wikipedia:Galleries and wants to keep the images (seems like because "he" clicked those images, not to mention the personal attacks on his talk page). Any inputs on that would be helpful. Thanks again. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

GAN "pauses"

Chiswick Chap, you commented out the "GA nominee" templates on ten of your GA nominations. I'm afraid that isn't really an option. If you withdraw GANs, which it appears you meant to do, you lose the seniority for them.

You have a couple of options instead of withdrawal, if you don't want to lose seniority, both of which require the commenting-out code to be removed:

• You can leave them active and hope that no one picks them for review until later
• You can add a note to the "|note=" field in the GA nominee template that indicates that you won't be able to work on issues raised by reviews for a period of time; that usually discourages potential reviewers while the note remains

I'll leave it to you which option you'd prefer to pursue. However, if the nominations remain commented out, they will be removed and the seniority will be lost. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Done. I think my situation is part of a wider crisis, however.

I guess you know already that the GAN queue is largely stuck, with many GANs remaining there unattended for months, and the queue growing steadily longer. I believe that many of the biology GANs were put there by students, who by now have presumably finished their courses and will never return: perhaps we could ping them and remove any unattended items. Finally, you have certainly noticed a third trend, which is for extremely inexperienced reviewers to dive in and take some immediate drastic action, either passing, failing, or just making an abusive comment which then has to be treated as a procedural fail for lack of willingness or ability to take the review forward. In short the system is creaking seriously.

I'm losing hope of finding suitable reviewers for articles on evolution and its history and philosophy. Still, I have improved dozens of articles in the area: they'll just have to stay as 'decent Cs' or whatever, without that little green cross.

To help control the queue, I have reviewed as many articles as I can, but taking on the student articles is a hiding to nothing, with minuscule topics and (from personal experience) a high probability of getting no answer for the work done. It seems to me that a more systematic solution is required.

I wish I could propose a range of sure-fire solutions, but it isn't easy: perhaps more competitions would help; perhaps we could encourage people to become GA reviewers; perhaps we could brief college lecturers on how GAN works, and why fire-and-forget won't work; perhaps we could have some kind of mentoring process for new GA reviewers; perhaps we could have a mentored student GAN programme; perhaps we should simply ask students not to submit articles unless they intend to go on editing after their course (hardly any of them do); perhaps we could consider a quid pro quo system or something like it. None of these are unproblematic. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've been bothered with a lot of the issues you have identified as well. Did you ever see the proposal that @Maunus: created, about merging our three major content review processes? Maybe give it a look? Vanamonde (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Maunus/PeerReviewReform? It's bold and ambitious, a lot to think about. Perhaps my immediate thought is that we need to do things in stages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of merit to Maunus' proposal. Getting wiki to accept a major change is a whole other matter. Perhaps start by dropping peer review and direct people to GAN. The root problem is lack of reviewers, which hits upon another major problem: inability to retain editors, which I'm sure I don't need to dwell upon. HalfGig talk 15:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It's an impressive bit of work, but yes, getting WP to accept anything is a challenge. I wouldn't want to drop peer review - by being informal and not leading to any kind of score or reward other than straight knowledge, it often yields useful and truthful insights, which I value as an occasional precursor to GA (or of course FA for such lofty types). In other words, PR is valuable because it is out of the loop of the other reviews, so I wouldn't agree with Maunus on that bit of the proposal – bringing it on board would destroy its informality, which is its essence. On the lack of reviewers, you're of course right that lack of editors is key. I can tell you that I'm finding lack of reviewers highly demotivating, so it feeds back (a positive feedback loop, a serious problem), making retention worse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I had initially printed out and read through the Hybrid (biology) article last week and was considering it for my first-time GA review. I am of the opinion that we editors that have passed a GA review and have experience in what it entails should lend a hand right now if they can because the queue is growing. I am also of the opinion that peer review is not necessary for GA but essential for FA. For GA, there is a need for somebody that is familiar with the necessary WP:POL, WP:CITET, the subject matter and key sources. I note that you have withdrawn the article however it falls within my interest as a key EB article. When you get some time, give me a ping and we can discuss its progression. (Despite what we think, WP:PROSE must have its way.) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the comments above on an ever-expanding queue, perhaps an article should not be nominated for GA unless it has previously been assessed as quality class=B first. This would help sort the wheat from the chaff but would mean putting some pressure back on the "badged" wikiprojects listed on the talkpage, in that usually only a member of that wikiproject can make an assessment. The negative of this is that although Wikiprojects specify their quality criteria (which looks much the same across Wikipedia), few of its listed "members" are willing to conduct article assessments up to B-class, if at all. Which raises a key Wikipedia structural point - what is the purpose of a WikiProject if not to provide quality and importance assessment of its articles? That is all they offer on a talk page. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 23:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, and your B-class assessment (something increasingly rarely seen outside MILHIST). I fear that demanding such an additional assessment when the problem is too few assessors (and mainly moribund WikiProjects, themselves starved of active editors) is unlikely to work. By the same token, additional reliance on projects won't work either. The projects are an excellent idea but they depend, in the absence of tangible reward, on enthusiasm which can come and go. It is, by the way, not necessarily a bad thing that people can come to Wikipedia as a personal project for some months or years to contribute what they feel they can, and then move on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Undoubtedly

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks a lot for you not only copy edits but also many other improvements of the article Mallard. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Image in the human hybrids section

I noticed you removed the image because of possible copyright infringement. Did something that'd give you that impression? I wrote sources in when I uploaded the picture. Osh33m (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm very doubtful such an image can be justified under the fair-usage provisions here, given that it's a minor aspect of the article which does not depend on having an image. It might be more defensible in a hominid article perhaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well honestly the main reason I put the image there was because there are images in the plants and animals subsections too. It was a matter of appropriateness and uniformity for the article. Osh33m (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you should take a look at WP:Fair Use, especially the sections about images. Such images are only to be used if there are no other options to illustrate the article subject, but in this case, it seems to illustrate a very minor point, and basically serves as decoration. An article with so many free images would rarely if ever warrant inclusion of fair use images. --FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Osh33m, William Harris: My thoughts also. It might be more defensible over at Archaic human admixture with modern humans where it's far closer to the article's central theme. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk, now I don't have to call in the auditors! Regards all, William Harris • (talk) • 10:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm moving it over to Archaic human admixture with modern humans now, I'll tweak the NFUR accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hybrid (biology)

We had an edit conflict on the Talk page - you had just beaten me to it. Congratulations! If you ever have an interest in genomic Introgression, please keep me in mind. You have been a pleasure to work with - William Harris • (talk) • 11:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the careful and thoughtful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The article Hybrid (biology) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hybrid (biology) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of William Harris -- William Harris (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks Chiswick Chap and your input - have been impressed by the quality of your work. Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey there! Could you check out American black duck? It looks better now, compared to before. However, on comparing with other articles, it seems like a taxonomy section might be required. I searched a lot to find out about its taxonomy, but could not find much. Could you help me out on that? (An experienced eye is really needed on the article ) Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I very rarely work on individual species articles, not really my bag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's ok. Thanks anyway. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Birds in culture

The article Birds in culture you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Birds in culture for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sabine's Sunbird -- Sabine's Sunbird (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Motion camouflage

The article Motion camouflage you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Motion camouflage for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Oxford dictionary entry for plant

The wording "offshoot of a family" perhaps seems a bit odd and "sprouting offspring of a family" seems better. The actual wording we settled on for the OXFORD DICTIONARY OF FAMILY NAMES IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND is given at http://plant.one-name.net/origins.html#2016 though that probably seems too formal for this Wikipedia page. Note that the actual surname meaning given is Child but, in itself, that lacks any metaphorical explanation to a modern mind.

2.27.1.241 (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Sprouting offspring of a family" is far too florid for Wikipedia, and falls oddly on English ears, too. It is interesting to hear that you admit an explicit conflict of interest with your role at ODFNBI and plant.one-name.net, especially given that you had more or less denied it earlier: you will have to take extreme care when editing any topic-related article such as on family names. You are surely correct, however, that excessively formal wording used specifically on family name websites is unlikely to be suitable here. Clearly "-branch" and "-twig" imply "Child" (or more generally "Descendant"); they may also imply "Younger Child" (not carrying the family's inherited title, for instance), but we are straying very far beyond due coverage in a general article here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, the usage is singular in the main Plant homeland, as in a eulogy to a newly trained Sir John Savage in 1621, "that hopeful Plant, that is the apparent Heir of all his glory, and this great Discent". (I expect the reference to "his glory" is religious). In detail, it is not just about any PEOPLE ARE PLANTS metaphor will do and neither was it I who came up with the specific meaning child which was in the form "young person" in Ernest Weekly's Surname Dictionary at the beginning of the 20th century as well as in the full version of the Oxford English Dictionary. You have called my involvement a conflict of interest but I have simply supplied factual information to those interested which has generally been received respectfully and taken into account. After spending 20 years carefully and rigorously researching this topic, it seems offhand, if not brutal, to be callously slapped down - though admittedly, I am not much familiar with Wikipedia. If I am to be allowed a further comment, all the professional onomasts that I know are far more respectful of the Guild of One Name Studies and far less respectful of the web pages such as "Last Name: Plant" in The Internet Surname Database. Is there some conflict of interest there or is it just a case of quickly serving up whatever is most easily available? 2.27.1.241 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahem. Let's leave rhetoric about callous brutality out of things please, it's not allowed here. You have a clear conflict of interest as a plain matter of fact – you are connected with the material you are citing, which could affect your impartiality as an editor on surname-related topics. I'll put a note on your user page about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Just as a correction, it is "young person" in the OED and "young offspring" in Weekly. Also, the ODFNBI actively sought help from the Guild of One Name Studies while retaining editorial control, acknowledging that more is required than just linguistics (e.g. full records, especially medieval ones, and, where appropriate DNA testing).2.27.1.241 (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for bold lettering, my bad.2.27.1.241 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

In case you are interested, I have added links to references for the meaning foetus or heir at http://plant.one-name.net/origins.html#2016 - I agree that "sprouting offshoot" might seem too flowery though it brings in the augmentative power of the contemporary medieval vegetative soul [the other two powers are the nutritive and generative].2.27.7.78 (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Be vewy, vewy quiet

You might very well be right. However, in context of WP, you'd need a cite for that interpretation, or a contradiction of his actual words by contemporary action or document. As for the quote itself, I normally disapprove of keeping them, because they don't add anything material; in this case, I'm glad I hadn't deleted it yet... So... I'm glad to see you'll discuss, rather than just revert. Elmer Fudd ^{what's up, Doc?} 09:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've found and added another source (Wilkinson himself), with (shh!) a vewy brief quote that directly supports the "primary" claim. I'm not a great fan of quotes in refs either, but in this case they do seem useful. The point, perhaps, is that since (unlike, say, disruptive coloration, where there is abundant evidence for the clearly stated function) both the function and evidence for it have been disputed, it is of interest to know what exactly the man responsible for it thought he was doing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Teleost scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Teleost article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 August 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks!

@Cwmhiraeth FYI. I'll be out of office. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I will check the blurb and keep an eye on the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ruth Robbins listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ruth Robbins. Since you had some involvement with the Ruth Robbins redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Vanamonde (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Parnassus Press listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Parnassus Press. Since you had some involvement with the Parnassus Press redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Vanamonde (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh whoa I didn't realize you had created these, CC. In anycase, they appear to have rather strange targets at the moment, hence the RFD. Nothing personal, I'm sure you realize.

In other news, I have sent A Wizard of Earthsea to FAC. Since you provided a rather thorough GAR for that page, I thought I'd let you know: any feedback you have would be valuable. Vanamonde (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

WP Humour

I suggest: "Yes, but the place that told me you were dead was a more Reliable Source than you." (From the Philogelos or 'Laughter Lover', 4th Century AD) ->

"Yes, but the forum where I heard that you were dead was a WP:SECONDARY source, while what you tell me is WP:PRIMARY, thus less WP:Reliable" (From the Philogelos or 'Laughter Lover', 4th Century AD)

Zezen (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the worthy suggestion... it's more accurate, but further from the original, which really did talk about a reliable source (remarkably). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources for mispronouncing Chiswick?

Just a quick question, for some years (well, decades) I have been continually amused by several Americans mispronounce your home town as "Chizz-Wick". There's a source here that mentions it, but I wonder if there's something more concrete? I managed to squeeze "Lie-ches-terr" into Leicester Square. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Good idea. I've found a source and added a note. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maija Isola

Evening Chiswick Chap. I see you're away until the middle of the month. No worries and enjoy the break. I'll wrap up the review in a day or so and just give me a ping when you're back and ready to roll. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The article Maija Isola you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Maija Isola for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of KJP1 -- KJP1 (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap - So, my bit's done and the review's on hold. Nothing major and some of the comments are only suggestions. Just ping me when you're back and ready to go. Hope you had a good break. KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maija Isola

The article Maija Isola you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maija Isola for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of KJP1 -- KJP1 (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger

Chiswick Chap,

Earlier this year, you weighed in on a potential merger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Lay_Catholic_scientists#Split.2FMerge_proposal. Can you weigh in again on my proposal?Akasseb (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Animal husbandry

The article Animal husbandry you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Animal husbandry for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Atsme -- Atsme (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Article after article, day after day, you tirelessly improve the articles you're working on; I practically always see your name in my Watchlist, and am always pleased to. The literally hundreds of edits you have made on Modern synthesis have transformed it into well-structured overview of its historical context, and yet that doesn't even make up half of your current contributions! Please keep up the great work! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

That's very kind, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile

Concerning the thread at Talk:Evolution, do you want the honors of hatting it? I mean, the gentleman appears to be a little too dense to get the hint.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Marking it as closed? Maybe I'm involved already. But perhaps I'll do it tomorrow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Animal husbandry

Hello! Your submission of Animal husbandry at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Modern synthesis

I must say the article has improved vastly since I last worked on it. I gave up on editing it in part because it got so contentious. Part of the problem was that editors could never agree on whether the modern synthesis was a historical event that occurred in the 20s, 30s and 40s, or a term for the current orthodoxy in evolutionary biology (especially neo-Darwinian orthodoxy); Steven Jay Gould in particular was prone to that later use whenever he wanted to attack that orthodoxy in the 70s and 80s and like Mayr his views have been very influential. You seem to have gone a long way towards resolving this issue in favor of the historical event viewpoint. That is very good because I think that the other possible definitions of the term (equating it to ideas in current evolutionary theory) are just too large and nebulous to get a handle on. I see there has already been an effort to address these issues in the lead. I would suggest making it even more explicit by mentioning some of the other ways the term has been used (Gould could be cited among others) but emphasizing the historical definition covered by this article. This might head of some arguments. It is still going to be a bit of a slog because term "modern synthesis" or "modern evolutionary synthesis" is a still a bit of a dog whistle for people with strong opinions about current topics in evolutionary theory, but hopefully this is less true that it was 10 or 20 years ago. I will consult my sources (Bowler, Larson, Provine & Mayr, Gould) and see if I can help a little.Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, all contributions gratefully accepted. I'll beef up the lead now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Voices (Le Guin novel)/GA1

Since you reviewed the first volume: interested? No pressure. Vanamonde (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ow! That's my arm you're twisting! ;-) Sure, I'll do it. I'm doing my bit to sort out the GA queue, but I find that many of the biology articles I review have long-gone noms... Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Haha, much appreciated. Yeah, the queue's monstrous at the moment: I took a couple myself today after seeing the length of it, and will likely take more soon...the oldest nominations, though, are topics I'm either involved in or don't know enough about...*sigh*. Vanamonde (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Animal husbandry has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Chiswick Chap. Animal husbandry, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Modern Synthesis

Chiswick Chap, I offered to provide quotations because I have a huge number of them ready at hand. However, they are mostly documenting things that we don't really believe anymore, i.e., targets for attacking the sufficiency of the Modern Synthesis, as when Mayr says ”It is most important to clear up first some misconceptions still held by a few, not familiar with modern genetics: (1) Evolution is not primarily a genetic event. Mutation merely supplies the gene pool with genetic variation; it is selection that induces evolutionary change.” (p. 613 of Mayr (1963) [3]).

Upon reflection, that is not really what this article needs. Here are some things that I think I can supply fairly readily:

• a list of the canonical works by Mayr, Dobzhansky, Simpson, etc.
  • The foundational works of the Holy Trinity
    • Fisher RA. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. London: Oxford University Press.
    • Wright S. 1931. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97.
    • Haldane JBS. 1932. The Causes of Evolution. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.
  • The Jesup lectures at Columbia, part of the organized campaign of the Synthesis
    • Dobzhansky, the fly geneticist, lectured in 1936 (these were retroactively declared to be part of the Jesup series as per (Cain, 2002)[3]): Dobzhansky T. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species: Columbia University Press, New York.
    • Mayr, the zoologist and systematist, lectured in 1941: Mayr E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
    • Simpson, the paleontologist, lectured in : Simpson GG. 1944. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. New York City: Columbia University Press.
    • Stebbins, the botanist, lectured in 1946: Stebbins GL. 1950. Variation and Evolution in Plants. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • some other books
    • Huxley JS. 1942. Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. London: George Allen & Unwin.
    • Ford EB. 1949. Mendelism and Evolution. London: Methuen & Co. .
    • Simpson GG. 1953. The Major Features of Evolution. New York: Simon and Schuster.
    • Dobzhansky T. 1955. Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    • Mayr E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
    • Stebbins GL. 1966. Processes of Organic Evolution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    • Simpson GG. 1967. The Meaning of Evolution. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
    • Dobzhansky T. 1970. Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia University Press.
• with more effort, a synopsis of a few lines of each of the above
• some quotations in which the founders of the synthesis characterize their views, e.g.,
  • ”The term ’Darwinism’ in the following discussions refers to the theory that selection is the only direction-giving factor in evolution” (Mayr, E.: In: Mayr, E., Provine, W. (eds.) Some Thoughts on the History of the Evolutionary Synthesis, pp. 1–48. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1980))
  • ”The basic postulates of the theory are three: (1) the process of mutation yields the genetic raw materials; (2) evolutionary changes are constructed from these materials by natural selection; (3) in sexual organisms, reproductive isolation makes the divergence of biological species irreversible. ” (p. 308 of Dobzhansky, T.: In: Ayala, F., Dobzhansky, T. (eds.) Chance and Creativity in Evolution, pp. 307–338. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles (1974))
  • ”its essence can be characterized by two postulates: (1) that all the events that lead to the production of new genotypes, such as mutation, recombination and fertilization, are essentially random and not in any way whatsoever finalistic, and (2) that the order in the organic world, manifested in the numerous adaptations of organisms to the physical and biotic environment, is due to the ordering effect of natural selection.” (p. 4 of Mayr, E.: Where Are We? Cold Spring Harbor Symposium of Quantitative Biology 24, 1–14 (1959))
  • ”The basic processes of evolution are five: (1) mutation and (2) genetic recombination which are the sources of variability, but do not provide direction. They contribute variability to a gene pool represented by the variant individuals composing any cross fertilizing population in nature. (3) Chromosomal organization and its variation, which affect genetic linkage, produce orderly arrangements of variation in the gene pool, which changes its composition through the guidance of (4) natural selection. Limits to the direction in which selection can guide the population are set by (5) reproductive isolation.” (p. 12 of Stebbins, G.L.: Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 191. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1966))

Of equal importance would be quotations or summaries of what is said by Smocovitis, Gayon, Provine, Amundson, and the other scholarly secondary sources on the Modern Synthesis. I have quoted Smocovitis in the Talk page, and I think those quotations are very important. She wrote a book specifically about the Modern Synthesis and it is definitely a reliable source and is more up-to-date than Provine. Her book should perhaps be the main source for this article. Have you read it? I have read it but I don't remember much detail. Dabs (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, it would be helpful to have citations for each of the quotations above. I think I would use these to make a table of the MS showing which authorities supported which of its elements (mutation, selection, etc). Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I added complete citations Dabs (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've used them in a table. I have already included the Smocovitis quotes, by the way, and have made some use of Gayon. I'm gradually working in Provine now. Cited quotes or summaries will be welcome as raw material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I added citations to canonical works of the MS above Dabs (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dabs: I have extensively rewritten the article, thanks to your involvement, as a historical sequence, with many new citations and links to both authors and their works. I think we have the historiography in an appropriate quantity, and the question of the start date of the synthesis covered to an appropriate depth. I'm still reading around the question, but to be honest I think the matter is pretty much handled. The later syntheses are carefully separated from the MS, and the MS itself is stated, with ref, to be pretty much dead and buried, the evidence being again a sequence of events that helped to bring about its destruction. Whatever other details may come to light, I think we have the "main points" rather well covered. The article has, by the way, doubled in size in the process. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Paradises Lost at FAC

Thought you should know, since you reviewed it at GAN; any feedback, if you have the time, would be valuable. The link, for your convenience. Vanamonde (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Mediterranean cuisine edits, Spain section

Hi Chiswick Chap. Thanks for your comment about my edits. Well, I think there was some vital information missing regarding Mediterranean cuisine in Spain, which I will discuss below, and as for balance, if we were to review this article seriously, the entry for Spain actually really is not balanced with the entries for other countries, where someone gives an ultra-brief overview of the cuisine there, citing various examples. For Spain, the only example cited is the star dish paella, known throughout the world and deserving of love and attention, but certainly not the only dish worth mentioning. The Spain article, to be serious, could or should be rewritten to give it a more general content (to even it out with the other articles), a content where paella is mentioned along with some other dishes, and generalizations are made about the cuisine there, but I don't know if I feel up to this task. To do so would take some effort, and I would have to dig through some of my books which may or may not be in boxes just to back myself up with all sorts of written sources. Perhaps in the future. But for now, at least, if someone is going to mention paella, they may as well get it right ;). For instance, paella is NOT typically made with long-grain rice as the article stated before, but with round-grain or short-grain or pearl rice, which is the basically only type of rice traditionally grown in Spain (though today there are some long-grain or longer-grain rice plantations, but they do not cater to paella-makers - they're usually used for other, more international dishes). This short-grain type of rice is substituted by long-grain rice in international recipes, especially ones for the English-speaking world, where it seems (the right kind of) round-grain rice is difficult to come by, which is what must cause the confusion. The major predominance of round-grain rice is a fact known by "the natives", of whom I consider myself a part, even though I've only lived here (in Catalonia) for 20+ years, but, as an emigrant from Catalonia, I also grew up visiting this country, so, I figure that gives me some extensive experience... I will eventually find some written source to back me up though... Anyway, I added the word "olive" to modify "oil", because the oil used in Spain is practically exclusively olive oil, and always in a paella, and I think that's an important fact. I also added rabbit, lima beans and string beans because these are quite common. If they're going to mention artichoke hearts, which is less common, I think it would make sense to mention a few more common ingredients. In fact, in Valencia, a paella without lima beans is like a "sin". Perhaps "fish" could be eliminated, though, as the main thing from the sea is seafood (shellfish, shrimp, ...) rather than fish. Anyway, I'm sorry if I've extended myself, but I just wanted to clear things up a bit. I'll eliminate the addition "fish", and then you can decide what you think of it all and let me know, if you feel like it.Catgirl (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to apologise, specially if things are wrong (even reliably-sourced wrong, as in this case!). You know well enough that we must rely on sources not personal experience, of course, and I was concerned that the corrections were not from the cited source, so we do now need a source to support the paragraph. I would just like to mention one thing, which is that all the other areas basically just describe one major dish in any detail, though Italian seems to have squeezed in three with a little flourish and a graceful self-excusing gesture, there seemed to be no getting around it. If you want to add another widespread Spanish Med. dish, go for it. But the sources should come first.... gracias! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Fauna Barnstar
		for your excellent work so far on the Bat article!

Enwebb (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind of you. Much appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Biological rules

Hi Chiswick Chap,

the photo in a navbox should representate the whole topic, which seems to be impossible as "biological rule" is an abstract concept. IMHO it's better to use no picture for such navboxes. Just my two cents.

Cheers, TIB-NOA (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about File:Bergmann's Rule.svg as replacement? This would make it clear, that the navbox deals about rules.--TIB-NOA (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Endless Forms Most Beautiful (book)

The article Endless Forms Most Beautiful (book) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Endless Forms Most Beautiful (book) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Orthogenesis

The article Orthogenesis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Orthogenesis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kostas20142 -- Kostas20142 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Speciation experiments

So I had an idea, but I want to pitch it before I go about doing it. Instead of having each speciation article containing a large non-exhaustive table of the laboratory experiments on speciation, how about an article of its own. Maybe Laboratory experiments of speciation? Or something similar? I am currently working on Reinforcement (not in mainspace yet) and it includes a table as well, many of which are duplicates of the allopatric speciation table. A separate article could give better coverage of the range of experiments and could be linked within the speciation articles themselves. What do you think? At User:Azcolvin429/Speciation is a table that includes info from all the tables on allo, peri, and reinf. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds very sensible, as long as it's properly cited nobody will object. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Fontanellar gun

I don't really agree with the changes you made to the Fontanellar gun article. The reference corrections are fine, but you also removed a significant amount of information from the article, including information on the function of the gun and the methods by which it kills its targets. Also, the wording changes you made resulted in the article lacking flow and, honestly, being rather boring and hard to read. Silverseren^C 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. However, the tone of the article was quite unencyclopedic before I started. Feel free to edit as you please, but it might be advisable to read the talk page discussion before you do. I shan't interfere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I replied there. Please let me know over there what exactly was unencyclopedic about the article previously. Silverseren^C 16:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As I already indicated, I shan't interfere, which in my case also means I won't edit the talk page. I have indicated by my edits what I think needed to be done; we agree it was a good thing that I added citations; and I stand by my writing style which has proven good enough for GA and indeed FA. Shyamal made clear that he felt the article had severe problems, possibly requiring the article to be redirected; feel free to discuss it with him, and edit as you please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

~Helicopter Llama~ 13:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind thought. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Modern synthesis

Chiswick Chap, this is Dabs (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC). I looked at the article again today and it is enormously more informative, balanced and up-to-date than it was before. Below is a list of minor suggestions.

Thank you. It sounds to me as if the article is now entirely ready for GA, and I have submitted it to GAN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The big issue with the article is whether it is about a historical event or a theoretical construct, either (1) what Smocovitis calls "The Synthesis" (the socio-cultural movement leading to a more unified discipline with a shared view of its boundaries, content, and its history including stories about heroes and villains), or (2) some kind of theory or paradigm that can be defined scientifically in terms of propositions rather than persons and narratives. From the historical format and the focus on persons, the article appears to be mainly about (1). For instance, the Modern_Synthesis_Limits.svg figure is clearly about (1) and not (2), as there are no "paleontological inputs" to (2). But the table of propositions suggests (2). I don't think this has to be changed, because the ambiguity on this issue conveys the ambiguity in scientific writings.

Noted. But Simpson proposed integrating palaeontology in 1944.

Here are some minor suggestions

• "The start of the modern synthesis was traditionally set around 1918" I have never seen anyone say that. Certainly it would be a minority view. Many people think of Fisher 1918 as the initial seed of a Mendelian-Darwinian fusion (cf event vs. theory), although Gayon and others have pointed out that this exaggerates the role of one paper and ignores a string of precursors going back literally to 1902. You have to understand that theoreticians get excited about Fisher 1918 and like to cite it because even if it had no significance for evolution, it would still have had enormous influence for statistical theory because Fisher figured out how to express variability due to different causes in terms of separate variances that could be added. This was revolutionary.

Fixed.

• "widespread belief among biologists that Darwinian evolution was in deep trouble, principally because experiments had failed to show" "Widespread" is a good choice. One has to avoid statements about majorities or minorities, because we have no polling numbers. Darwinism has always been popular, even if not dominant. But "principally because experiments..." is not the reason. I would look for generalizations in Bowler's book.

Fixed.

• "written without knowledge of the mechanism of inheritance." I realize that it is very traditional to say this, but IMHO these traditional descriptions are intentionally misleading: Darwin developed his theory, not in the absence of any view of heredity and variation, but with an incorrect view.

Fixed.

• "would be weakened by 50% at each generation" This is an opportunity to point to Fleeming Jenkin's criticism, and to introduce Gayon's narrative, in which Darwin's mistaken views of heredity burden his theory with a built-in crisis.

Linked FJ, from my work on Eclipse of Darwinism.

• "demonstrated that inheritance was 'hard', not Lamarckian". The "not Lamarckian" part is in-world Darwinian story-telling. No one except Darwinians ever accepted Weismann's experiments as an argument against Lamarckism, because Lamarckism is not about mutilations, but about the inheritance of bodily responses due to effort.

Fixed.

• "Gregor Mendel's work was re-discovered by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns in 1900." This is definitely not an accurate characterization. You want to avoid a characterization like this one (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/timeline/1900_redis_Mendel.php). It makes it sound like the important thing that happened in 1900 was that some people got round to reading a 40-year-old article by an Austrian monk. This indeed happened but what is more important is that a number of people were doing controlled breeding experiments that had been going on for a long time, for years, in some cases. De Vries had seen 3:1 ratios much earlier than this. Many historians have written about this. A number of scholarly sources are listed here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/rediscovery-mendels-laws-heredity.

Fixed.

• "the debate only resolved by the development of population genetics, giving a date of 1918 for the start of the supposed synthesis after a period of eclipse" This is definitely giving the wrong impression. I doubt that any ordinary biologist turned to mathematics to solve empirical questions. If you want to point to one incident, the hooded rat experiment is a better choice, a la Provine 1971. The experiment showed that selection could create new types by shifting phenotypes-- turning mottled rats almost completely dark, or almost completely white. The selection experiment itself did not resolve the question of whether this was a Darwinian process of fluctuation and blending, or a Mendelian process, or some mixture. Castle himself believed in a combination of Mendelian inheritance and blending of factors in heterozygotes. But eventually Morgan's students convinced him that the explanation was purely Mendelian, and he conceded. This was in 1919 I think. The ultimate meaning of the experiment for Darwinians was that selection could create new types *without mutation*, as Provine stresses, relying on recombination to create successively more extreme individuals from out of the initial gene pool. The debate was resolved by genetics, by genetic dissection of Castle's rats, not by population genetics.

OK, I've brought in Castle from Mutationism which I've also worked on intensively.

• "historians Arlin Stoltzfus and Kele Cable" Cable is a historian, Stoltzfus is a scientist.

• Also, it would be good to introduce Gayon, a historian who has said some of the same things much earlier in a book-length treatment. Traditional histories written by Darwin-friendly sources are misleading about Darwin's mistaken views of heredity, and they often say something coy like "Darwin left this problem for others to work out". Gayon's book problematizes Darwin's commitment to blending inheritance. This results in a crisis that comes to fruition when genetics is discovered. Johannsen's experiments disproved DArwin's mechanism. Darwin's followers had to identify a new mechanism to make selection work. The Mendelian mechanism is not simply the frequency-shifting form of selection that the Mendelians conceptualize, because this could be used in a theory of evolution by single mutations. Ultimately the frequency-shifting form of selection is used to justify a shape-shifting form of selection via the genetics of quantitative traits (the multiple-factor model). This is Gayon's thesis.

Reffed.

• "De Beer's embryology, 1930" I don't see why this is included. The inclusion of this makes it seem like we are taking a march through the 20th century rather than talking about the Modern Synthesis itself.

Rewritten the section by merging with material on de Beer from the evo-devo section. De Beer made highly relevant (and prescient) comments about the place of embryology, and other authors, cited, have noted his relevance to the synthesis, even though his ideas were not incorporated until much later. The section now says that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Definitions by the founders" I would break up Mayr's statements about randomness into a statement about mutation and a statement about recombination. This removes 1 row and 2 blank cells, making the table less sparse. Also, note that these authors made different claims in different places. Dobzhansky certainly had much to say about the role of recombination. I could find some more statement to help fill in the blanks.

Fixed.

• • ”It is most important to clear up first some misconceptions still held by a few, not familiar with modern genetics: (1) Evolution is not primarily a genetic event. Mutation merely supplies the gene pool with genetic variation; it is selection that induces evolutionary change.” (p. 613 of Mayr E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press)
  • ”Those authors who thought that mutations alone supplied the variability on which selection can act, often called natural selection a chance theory. They said that evolution had to wait for the lucky accident of a favorable mutation before natural selection could become active. This is now known to be completely wrong. Recombination provides in every generation abundant variation on which the selection of the relatively better adapted members of a population can work.” (p. 38 of Mayr E. 1994. The Resistance to Darwinism and the Misconceptions on which it was Based. In: Campbell JH, Schopf JW, editors. Creative Evolution?! London: Jones & Bartlett, Inc. p. 35-46.) Dabs (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Housefly

While looking into copyright issues at Copypatrol, this edit was flagged. Of course, it's okay because you identify the source material in the edit summary but could I point you to Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia, which has our desired wording for such situations?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Two points: 1) I assembled the original material, so I don't have to say anything; 2) as you rightly observe, I declared the copy in the edit comment anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Medicinal plants

is currently drawing some fire at FT/N -- thought you should know since you did so much work on it. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, what an absurdity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

that's just camouflage

I suppose.

But then isn't leaf mimicry also just camouflage, then?

So, suppose wording is changed to "camouflage" or "Carolina mantii change coloration to match surroundings", wouldn't the image be appropriate for Antipredator adaptations (See article: "Generally, mantises protect themselves by camouflage...")?

What I particularly notice is that not only does the tone of the local mantis match the specific limestone (different from the tone of the other less used regional limestones), the dark speckling on the mantis matches the Fusillade molds, again unique to the Cottonwood Limestone. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. But your personal observation about the local limestone coloration is just that, your own, which isn't allowable on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

So, change caption to "Carolina mantii change coloration to match environment."? IveGoneAway (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC) 14:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If we considered the image necessary to the article then that would be something like the text we'd want, but basically I don't see it as needed for the article, as there are already plenty of images there (and FAC hates articles with too many images), several of them including the lead image of well-camouflaged specimens. Anyway that's my view. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Add to Carolina mantis then? The Carolina mantis's color indicates its environment at time of molting. Some descriptions have the different coloration as variants, rather than changes. The present article has both descriptions, one is probably wrong, maybe; so, OFI. Maybe a gallery of different Carolina mantii colorations? IveGoneAway (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, why not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

After I have collected a series, maybe, and have found a reference for the phenomenon. I am not entirely happy with the quality, it seems not quite focused, but the detail of the fossils suggests otherwise -- the coloration match does make it hard for the eyes to focus on it. Thanks. IveGoneAway (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"Mimicry"? This one recently molted on fading Lilium lancifolium: green legs to blend into stem, brown body to match dead leaves, and arched back to match contour of the leaves. File:Carolina Mantis mimicry of Lilium lancifolium 02.jpg. Not that I would add this to Praying mantis, it is for the Carolina mantis gallery.

Gallery? Best to keep those to a minimum too, unless you mean a page on Commons which would be entirely in order. I think this talk page conversation is closed, by the way. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		For your work with User:Iztwoz on improving the Microorganism article! pwnzor.ak (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thank you! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You know the drill

[4] - LouisAragon (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Entomophagy

Mmm, you're right about reverting my photo addition.RikSchuiling (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Amphidromus GA

Thank you for your very constructive review =)! Please be on the look for more gastropod-related submissions in the near feature! I'll be working on a few more soon. Best wishes! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Microorganism/GA1#comments

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Microorganism/GA1#comments. An issue in this section requires your attention. Kostas20142 (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Phytomedicine

Hello Chap. Please have a look at the Phytomedicine page. It is all about a narrow German view of diseases in plants, whereas the more common definition would be equivalent to Herbalism where we worked before. Merge to herbalism with a trimmed plant diseases section? Thanks. Following you here. --Zefr (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it anything to do with herbalism at all? The article makes out the subject is diseases of plants, apparently entirely conventional. There's something very wrong, however. The journal's homepage seems to be dead, even if ScienceDirect has a live archive up to the present moment. Odd. Further, the articles inside the journal are about herb effects on animals and humans, which certainly is herbalism. Weird. That means that the stuff in the WP article is not related to the stuff in the journal! Either there are 2 correct but different uses of the term, or the WP article is nonsense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the solution is to do a major trim of the current article to acknowledge the origin of German plant pathology, then seek a merge with Herbalism. Ok? --Zefr (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds about right! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Microorganism

Hi Chiswick Chap - yes that reviewer was quick off the mark. Shall I stop making further edits at this stage? thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Guess so, let's respond to the review and take it from there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Microorganism

The article Microorganism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Microorganism for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kostas20142 -- Kostas20142 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Excellent article. Congratulations and thanks for all the work. --Zefr (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Job well done. Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all round. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aircraft camouflage

The article Aircraft camouflage you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aircraft camouflage for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Animal husbandry

On 5 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Animal husbandry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that songs and books for children often depict happy farm animals in attractive countryside, glossing over the realities of impersonal, mechanized activities involved in modern intensive farming? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Animal husbandry. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Animal husbandry), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 03:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

And very nice, too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Mite

Having clarified the copyright position of Mite, I am going to work on it, probably starting tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ross expedition

The article Ross expedition you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ross expedition for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kostas20142 -- Kostas20142 (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Ross expedition

Congratulations! Ross expedition has been promoted to GA. Thank you for your way more than good job so far! --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind of you to say so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

ORCP-RfA nom

Our recent extended interaction was more than positive, and you gave me the impression that you have the right temperament for an administrator. I decided to take a more careful look at your contribution, AfD stats etc and I think you have really high chances of passing RfA. Not to mention that the project would benefit by having you granted the permissions. Would you like to take the ORCP to confirm this?? I am asking this because after that, I would like to nominate you if you accept. --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It's really kind of you to suggest it but I'd rather not, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Kostas20142 (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but not sure I'm qualified to give an answer. The process you suggest certainly sounds sensible and likely to give the best answer possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Species

This comment article doi:10.1093/gbe/evx045 and the one it's derived from might be interesting for your work on Species. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'll take a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the GAN

Hi Chap, just wanted to send some public thanks for the GAN review of Colorado Potato Beetle. No fuss, useful comments, and swiftly sorted. Much appreciation indeed.Zakhx150 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure, as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Lizard

Probably will wait until later this week to start on Lizard and map out a game plan like sections and who will write what. Aside from the cladograms, I feel we should re-write it from scratch. I'm sure Cwmhiraeth will still join but I wonder if we find someone from WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles to help as well. LittleJerry (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I am currently working intermittently on Woodpecker and plan to do Sea anemone next. I really know very little about reptiles and do no have any useful sources, so I will be happy to leave this one to you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do. Sounds a good idea to get a herpetologist on the job! Just to let you know, I will be on hols from the 14th. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll start work on ecology/social behavior/communication later this week. Try not to get into those topics. :) LittleJerry (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I won't! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Signaling seems to me to be tied to communication which my book gets into detail on. Hence, the section I'm writing will probably replace the current signaling section. LittleJerry (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That's probably fine, the current source while just about usable isn't the best (and I didn't write the section). The anole lizard dewlap thing is I think worth a mention, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll be busier these next two weeks, but I plan to rewrite reproduction. Would you be able to improve morphology and perhaps write about senses? LittleJerry (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm running out of time before the hols, but I'll at least take a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I can take it from here, but I think I'll have to wait for you to come back to work on more culture and human interaction. I'm in no hurry to get this to GA. What's important is that an article on a well-known and diverse group is in better shape. LittleJerry (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry - I reviewed the culture section and don't have anything to add to it. If you can find anything better, feel free. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC) @LittleJerry - the article seems ready to go to me, and editing seems to have slowed to a halt. Is there anything else you think needs done before we nominate it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I kind of lost interest in this as a GA project. I guess i wasn't thinking of GA as much as just trying to improve the article since it is about an major vertebrate group, but was so underdeveloped. I figure it is not ready for GA at this point, locomotion and thermoregulation should probably be expanded. LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll see about expanding those points. If I decide to nominate it, I'll consult with you first. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I also think mosasaurs should be mentioned somewhere in taxonomy. LittleJerry (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Bat

You know, I thought I was done with FA projects at least on major taxa, but I’m tempted to do another higher mammal taxa. Do you think Bat is workable? I feel there are a few things missing (like social structure) and the culture section should be summarized more. Do you know any major contributors that could help us? LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I've done a bit on it from time to time, and I see now it's not in a bad state, well worth having a go at. The culture section needs more refs and you're right, it may be a bit long in places. Don't know who can help us, might be worth looking down the article history and talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the most difficult part is the sourcing since we didn't write the majority of the article. LittleJerry (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Many of the sources are primary, which does rather suggest a lot of them need to be replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd try to find someone that could help us. Perhaps we could also find someone to spotcheck the sources. LittleJerry (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If you can find someone that'd be great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

your revert Suggestion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Patterns_in_nature&oldid=prev&diff=805040292 . How about pattern recognition (psychology)? Without pattern formation (in the brain!), pattern recognition would not be possible. There is a duality here that must not be neglected. -- Kku (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Habitat

I just found this blog where the article Habitat, that I brought to GA status in 2016, has been copied wholesale without attribution. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a very crappy blog site where the service provider has had the temerity to include a disclaimer that a) they aren't responsible for anything their bloggers do, and b) they make a habit of copying whatever they like as fair use for educational reasons. Oh, and c) only bloggers can comment on postings, and there's no contact address. In other words, a pile of steaming horse-poo. You could report it to the Wikipedia legal eagles if you want the site to be malleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you comments and couldn't find a way to contact the author. I have reported it here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Pest control

On 15 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pest control, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that pesticides are formulated to kill pests, but may have detrimental effects on beneficial insects such as bees? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pest control. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pest control), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 01:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Adaptation

Thanks for the correction of my edit. I have no access to the relevant source and just tried to make sense of the words. The way this sentence is phrased suggests it is a quote, in which case it should be in inverted commas, but if it is a précis of what was said, then I think the words "'first of all" are redundant. Any thoughts?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

We can get rid of those 3 words if it works better for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Rosemaling or Rosemåling

Hello Chiswick Chap On 2015-07-15 you moved Rosemaling to Rosemåling with the edit summary: (actual spelling). Are you sure that's correct? It's come up in a discussion here. Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Inspired

Inspired by your body of work to try to jump an article (Egg allergy) from C-class to Good Article. David notMD (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, great! The best of luck with it. The key thing is attention to the citations; of course, you have to cover the subject decently as well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Micropredator, etc

Micropredator, parasite, parasitoid, and predator strategies compared. Their interactions with their hosts form a continuum. Micropredation and parasitoidy are now considered to be evolutionary strategies within parasitism.

Thank you, I agree with having micropredator as a redirect. But I want to note that I was hedging my bets when I created the page, since if you search Wikipedia for "micropredator" you'll see examples of the other definition. I'd say right now the ratio is about even. I figured I'd create a dab page, but that seems to be problematic since a bot will complain whenever it is linked to directly.

A comment, I'm surprised that insects eating leaves of plants etc "counts" as predation, or even parasitism. Best wishes, —Soap— 00:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Soap's last comment. A predator needs "prey", and I can't really think of a leaf in this way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Soap, Cwmhiraeth: No point being surprised, let's be informed. A leaf is a living part of a plant, just as a the blood a mosquito depends on is part of an animal.

See Parasitism#Evolutionarystrategies, which cites

Poulin, Robert; Randhawa, Haseeb S. (February 2015). "Evolution of parasitism along convergent lines: from ecology to genomics". Parasitology. 142 (Suppl 1): S6–S15. doi:10.1017/S0031182013001674. PMC 4413784. PMID 24229807.. I'd say that review paper was decisive: and it is based on an extensive literature which heads along the same lines. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to rewrite our article Predation then, which contrasts predation with herbivory and fungivory? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If we can find a review article that supports that, then we'd need to. Personally I'd say that an ecologist's view would be that all three are basically alike in effect on both the eating and the eaten species, so these old names are basically obsolete, so it's likely that sources exist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced. The meanings of predator, herbivore etc are so well established that I would not want to make such changes, although the concept of micropredation could be mentioned on the herbivory page. Is an antelope a predator under this new definition? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Straw man job - the term is obviously not used like this. Ecologists equate the roles using less entrenched names like "primary consumer" (caterpillar, snail, antelope) and "secondary consumer" (blue tit, lion). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A historical cookbook GA nomination

Hi Chiswick! As an author of a number of good articles about historical cookbooks, perhaps you would be interested in reviewing the sole article that is currently listed at WP:GAN#FOOD? It's about Compendium ferculorum, the oldest cookbook in Polish. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Modern synthesis

Hello and thank you for creating Modern synthesis. This term does seem to be ambiguous.

There are quite a few wikilinks to the title, which now take readers to the disambiguation page. A group of editors try to improve this type of situation by editing the links to point directly the intended meaning. I've done a few but I'm having difficulty as I'm no expert on the subject. Please can you help, either by fixing links or by giving us some hints? Thanks, Certes (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Chiswick Chap:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Ooooooowwwwwoooo (wolf-like howl), many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Gray wolf howling

There are two auditory files of gray wolves howling at Gray wolf#Auditory that could give you shivers. Happy Halloween!

 – Corinne (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth David

May I draw your attention, as one writer on cooks to another, that SchroCat and I have been revising the article on Elizabeth David, which is now up for peer review, here, where comments will be gratefully received, if you so minded? – Tim Riley (3 November 2017)

• Thanks for your comments, CC. By the by, it may be worth keeping an eye on this thread, which could end up giving us access to the Food Library collection of Bloomsbury press. They may say no, but we have got some access to Bloomsbury's works, and a specialist food collection could prove invaluable. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That's very nice of you. Sounds great! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Quote: "this is a splendid article and it's quite hard find anything to improve." – coming from you I find that a treasurable comment. Just saying. Tim riley talk 22:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 11 years ago...

Happy First Edit Day, Chiswick Chap, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Slightlymad 05:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kilim motifs

The article Kilim motifs you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kilim motifs for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kpalion -- Kpalion (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

John

Thanks for your comments on Talk:Rotating locomotion in living systems, including the ones I don't necessarily agree with. So far, this has been a very positive experience as a first-time TFA author, and I'm thankful to you and several others for that. I'm very dismayed that the first and only contentious editing of the day has been by an admin, John. I'd very much like to get the temperature of the discussion way back down where it should be, and I'd appreciate any help you could provide to do that, even if it means content decisions don't go the way I might like. Is there a way we can get some cooler heads involved? Or maybe walk back what John is taking as an "attack"? Thank you!!! —swpb^{T go beyond} 19:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think at least 24 hours to reflect quietly is likely to be the best thing now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Plant communication

An article that you have been involved in editing—Plant communication —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You have received this message as you are one of the most recent names in either the source or destination article's history page. This proposal serves two purposes, namely

1. To suggest a merge (obviously) of the overlapping material
2. To draw attention to the source article (the info to be merged into the destination article, which requires expansion)

Many thanks for your time! Edaham (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your patient explanation of the two subjects. It's very clear that they don't belong together. I had not read things properly and assumed that plant cognition dealt with a plant's ability to perceive and respond to its environment and not the fanciful sci-fi stuff written on the cognition page. I feel a bit dirty and shaken for having suggested it. This does seem however to support my original creation of the plant communication category and its addition to pages associated with actual plant communication, Edaham (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. No reflection on you but the other article certainly needs attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Insects in music

Hello Chiswick Chap. Sure thing. Cheers Tortillovsky (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. I removed the information about spiders (since spiders are not insects). Does the article need to be renamed as to include arachnids? Rgrds, Tortillovsky (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think it's better as it is. Ziggy's "spiders" had nothing to do with Arachnidae anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For all your work on important science books, such as Sociobiology. Vanamonde (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 - that's very kind of you, many thanks! I think the review's all done now, btw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis

The article Sociobiology: The New Synthesis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sociobiology: The New Synthesis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Belated MA for Octopus

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Octopus (estimated annual readership: 7006125000000000000♠1,250,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! – Rhinopias (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I had noticed and it has been sitting at the top of my Awards cabinet as such for a while now! But many thanks for the thought. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I didn't see anyone recognize the three of you for your work with the shiny banner, so thought I'd go ahead and do that! – Rhinopias (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Bat FAC

I think I'll nominate it next week. You can nominate earlier but I many be busier this week. LittleJerry (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, no hurry. I wonder if we shouldn't get it well checked over, perhaps by peer review, before FAC? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer review seems to have little activity. Perhaps we can find someone to copyedit it. LittleJerry (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, drop the PR idea. I'm not very concerned about copyediting, we can do that ourselves, but it would be good to have a zoologist look it over. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

LittleJerry: I've fixed a lot of ref errors and added Harvard links (yeah, baggy trousers 'n' all) for the three named sources. I suspect there are more - so maybe your copyediting idea is wise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Translation

I saw on the Biology WikiProject that you needed someone to translate the section "Cladogram" from French to English. Well now its translated. User:DiamondCoder November 11 2017 on Chiswick Chap 01:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Merci beaucoup! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Gerda, thank you very much, it's a lovely thing you are doing with your jewels. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a selfish lovely thing ;) - I like to see my missed friend's jewels in the design of my missed friend, and thanks in the morning set a good mood. - I'm on vacation, so the mood is extra good ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Bat has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Chiswick Chap. Bat, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Bat FAC

The first paragraph of the conservation sections has no cites. LittleJerry (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

How odd. It looks as if everybody was hoping someone else would work on it... I've reffed it now. I think we need to check all the refs for format and correctness very carefully before FAC. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for this, which is mostly excellent. I'm not a fan of the "-ing" form of verbs being overused so I had taken that out and you have reinstated it. It may be that it isn't overused, in which case fine, I haven't looked yet. Also, have you observed the hidden note I placed here last night? I think this is a more serious problem. There's an opportunity to coalesce and streamline which we should take, but it isn't straightforward. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with -ing in moderate amounts, used skilfully, and was unaware I was reverting anything, I was just bringing the expression which I supposed to be from a co-nom up to my usual standard. I had not seen your comment - hidden is never a very good place for such things, unless it's to oneself - but I had raised this with my co-noms before GAN and they were happy that the overlap was sensible here: as you note, the topics are in fact rather different. It perhaps isn't surprising that such an important feature of the group should need to be discussed from different aspects. We may have to defend it at FAC one day but that's another story. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll think and look again later. I'm still uneasy about the overlap and feel it might be a problem at FAC, which is why I'm raising it. LittleJerry asked me at my talk to take a look at it with a view to promotion which is why I'm looking in the first place. It's a super article, by the way. Just needs a wee polish. Should we take this to article talk, short of a formal peer review? --John (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Can do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to cause tension. But I think John could provide suggestions on out to structure the rest of the article. LittleJerry (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, he's not a biologist, and has already copy-edited. Perhaps he can offer a general view of structure but it's not ideal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

We have to separate reproduction into its own section like well did for Octopus. No FA animal article includes things like mating behaviors in anatomy and physiology. LittleJerry (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Vitamin C Nomination

Same message I sent to the reviewer of my first nomination - I am new to this, so be harsh and exacting. David notMD (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I have invited three editors with vast experience on topics medical (Doc James, Zefr, Jytdog) to either add their comments to the review process or weigh in at the article. I will be treating your comments as a higher priority, but wanted to make sure we were not missing anything crucial. David notMD (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

David notMD: Generally a poor idea. GAN is already a public forum and you're opening yourself to charges of bias if you invite people individually. It's not for you to treat the reviewer as "higher priority": policy dictates that the reviewer makes the final decision, taking other comments into account. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Badly worded. My apologies. David notMD (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe that Doc James is on vacation, but once back, I expect him to weigh in on this article. David notMD (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Genetic engineering

I just wanted to drop a personal note of thanks for the GA review. Your contributions to biology and wikipedia in general are outstanding. AIRcorn (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

That's really kind of you. Great article, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Refs in the lead

For health care articles we generally put refs in the lead per WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess that as a 35% healthcare article it might be up to the reviewer to decide which way that would go, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The change by Doc James was much more than restoring references to the lead. What it was, was a complete replacement of the new lead with the old lead, which in my opinion no longer matches the order or content of the revised article. David notMD (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

David notMD: Indeed. He is a very busy man and his action here was taken too quickly. Feel free to sort it out, keeping the refs and staying as close to his style and level of detail as possible, but matching the content of the article. We also need to cover the biology, not just the medicine, in the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

My intention is to address all of the outstanding Comments, and then loop back to completely rewriting the Lead so that it reflects the revised articles order and content. I intend to include citations, as that will match other vitamins. David notMD (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

David notMD - good, that's what I thought. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap I drafted a revised Lead, but when I went to install it, I saw that radical changes are continuing to be made to order of sections. Rather than do any more tonight I intend to resume tomorrow morning. David notMD (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

David notMD OK. No need to ping me on my talk page - talk automatically pings the owner. When you've sorted the lead I'll close it out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Replace lead, repaired resulting citation errors and went through some of the short sections I had not touched on before to improve the writing style. David notMD (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Mite

Mite is now under review. On my screen, the cladogram looks wrong. There is a red line on the right with a gap in it and the words ""Acari" (mites and ticks)" extend off to the right and need a scrollbar to see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The red line brackets the groups that are called Acari, which is seen not to be a clade. The formatting options are a bit limited; I can shorten some of the labels. I'll see what I can do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It has improved now that it is on two lines. I'm stopping for the night now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I shortened the other labels, too. And I'm adding fossils. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Bat

On 25 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the diets of different species of bat include frogs, fish, other bats, nectar, and blood? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bat. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bat), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Mrs David

No good deed goes unpunished: as you have contributed so much at PR (and elsewhere) to Mrs D's article I venture to tell you that we have her up for FAC if you are minded to look in. We've had excellent contributions so far, but it would be wonderful to have your thoughts there if you can spare the time. – Tim riley talk 19:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, CC. Suggested tweaks duly twuck. Your encouragement throughout this upgrade has been wonderfully sustaining. Tim riley talk 20:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

You must've read this in the history of the article, it was your review that made me want to finish the article and eventually improve it further. Thank you for the review. I happen to think this article is not too difficult to bring it to the FA standard given the present state. I'll certainly notify you if a FAC actually starts.

Thank you especially for the copyedit, I've checked it and it was a truly good job. Unfortunately enough, I know someone needs to copyedit my writing and I always request someone copyedits it before I submit it to FAC. I remember that when writing the last sections of the article after the review, I was constantly surprised by another mistake I had just made. (It's not that I cannot into proper English but this requires some patience and attentiveness, something I can rarely boast.)--R8R (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind words! Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Housefly

They all come at once! Housefly is also under review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Chiswick Chap. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 17:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a go. I'll probably mainly look at the biology articles but I may nose about a bit more widely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Housefly

I haven't got much time till this evening, but will work on any GAR matters remaining at that time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I've had a go at all of them (not necessarily complete), but the new material in Description is getting a bit unwieldy, might need subsections there. And I'm sure there'll be more to do, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coloration evidence for natural selection

The article Coloration evidence for natural selection you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Coloration evidence for natural selection for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Chiswick Chap. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Quick comment on Halomonas

Per your comment in the edit summary here. It's on my to do list! I'll get to it within a week or so. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Great! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: Ways to improve Battlefield illumination

The actual author of the new text in that article is another user, User:Srleffler, I merely created the original redirect a few years back. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I discovered that when I started looking about the traditional way. The NPP tools are misleading both in who they think the author is, and how old an article is (sometimes years out). Sorry for the bother. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not actually the author of that text either. As my edit summary indicated, the text was copied from an older version of Lighting. The redirect Joy created pointed to that section, but someone had since deleted the section from the article. I felt the topic was viable so I moved it into its own article.--Srleffler (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome. In my view the topic is undoubtedly notable, but should have been provided with reliable sources at once, just as we demand from newbies at NPP. I've added a few. No reason for us to treat ourselves more lightly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Humans

Ok, perhaps I ought to have looked harder. The lack of even a two word rationale for the deletion made it look like a creationist was busy deleting anything supporting the "evolution heresy". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed. No reason why you should have looked there, actually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

A question

What is the policy regarding removing PROD templates? I see an IP editor removed a PROD tag[5] you added to Hindaun Fort. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 18:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone may remove them, and even if they are IPs and give no explanation, the PROD is finished. We can slap a warning on the IP if you think it was malicious, but it won't help the PROD process. I'll AfD the article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Developmental drive / evolutionary developmental biology merger

Just a note of thanks for your speedy merging efforts! I just (finally) got my ass in gear to address this, and found you had already made an excellent job of it. Much obliged :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Elmidae - that's very kind of you. However, you also mentioned that the material might be better in another article - I'm far from sure that it's really needed in the evo-devo article (undue?) and won't mind at all if you move or adapt it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mutationism

The article Mutationism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mutationism for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Parasitoid

CC - I am not going to tackle the GA review for Parasitoid (first, because not my area of expertise; second, because I still have a day job), but I will suggest that the "In science fiction" sub-section would benefit be being trimmed a bit. And that the deletions include the image. Good luck with adding one more article to your long list of GAs and FAs. David notMD (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

David notMD Many thanks. I'd be really grateful if you could take on one of my other GANs, then, as there are several that have been waiting a long while! I'm sure you can cope with any of the history of evolutionary biology ones. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Industrial melanism - sent email to Goiran

I sent Dr Goiran an email asking her thoughts on the seasnake melanism being a mutation or a reversible response to industrial pollution. As in, what happens when a melanic snake is moved to a non-polluted environment? Mates with a non-melanic snake? I did see that one of her references (Jones DE) was about corn snakes (dry land snakes) being fed lead, cadmium and mercury for 34 weeks and being able to concentrate these minerals into shed skin. The abstract for that article does not mention changes to skin coloration, which argues against individual, reversable adaptation. Whether I take on the GA review or not, I would like to see examples other than moth/camouflage already in the article. That is a prey camouflage theory. Would the same apply to predator camouflage? The latter does not apply to seasnakes, as they feed on fish eggs. Any description of seasnakes should include how long the local waters have been contamination by agricultural and mining run-off. David notMD (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

At http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1125 found this: "Sea snakes shed their skin every two to six weeks, which is more frequently than land snakes and more often than needed for growth alone. The process involves rubbing the lips against coral or other hard substrate to loosen the skin. The snake's skin is then anchored to the substrate as it crawls forward, leaving the skin turned inside out behind it. Skin shedding allows sea snakes to rid themselves of fouling marine organisms such as algae, barnacles and bryozoans (Heatwole 1999)."

David notMD Hi, this would probably fall foul of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. We need to use review papers not (in the main) primary research, still less the unpublished opinion of researchers. However, the industrial melanism article already has substantial coverage of possible mechanisms other than camouflage, including immunity and thermal advantage; and it makes use of examples from beetles and your seasnakes as well as moths. That said, the evidence for camouflage is strong, and the evidence for the other mechanisms is speculative at best. In other words, the article is bending over to be fair, but the different species of moth are the best evidence and it points to camouflage, most strongly in the very well investigated case of B. betularia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer + a barnstar

		The Happy Holiday Barnstar

How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me.
The Best of Regards,
Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ ^{and Merry Christmas} 12:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Barbara. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Industrial melanism

The article Industrial melanism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Industrial melanism for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Congrats. By the way, a different example of fast evolution in snakes is at PMID 16777750. David notMD (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Yes, rapid evolution by natural selection could not be doubted by any rational being, could it now... Happy Christmas, everyone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	Holiday barnstar
	You deserve a holiday barnstar, but this snowflake was as close as I could come. And best holiday wishes to you. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that's very kind of you. Happy Christmas! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Plant-fungus horizontal gene transfer

Err, sorry about that.. I was in the middle of a stupidly big-chunk tidying-up of that article, and couldn't face redoing the lot when I came into edit conflict with you. I think we covered mostly the same ground, but you did a lot of what looks like semi-automated cleanup to me (spaces and within refs), and that's gone. If you don't mind, could you do another pass of that now? Apologies again, will try to stick to smaller increments next time ;) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"tis the season...."

Hello Chiswick Chap: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ―Buster7 ☎ 19:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!

	Wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	A very Happy, Glorious, Prosperous Christmas and New Year! God bless!  — Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Dead link in 'Arab Agricultural Revolution thesis

Yo Chiswick chap!

I checked out once more: Zaimeche, Salah (August 2002). "Agriculture in Muslim civilisation : A Green Revolution in Pre-Modern Times". Muslim Heritage. http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/agriculture-muslim-civilisation-green-revolution-pre-modern-times

but I keep on getting: "Page not found The requested page "/article/agriculture-muslim-civilisation-green-revolution-pre-modern-times" could not be found."--Gerard1453 (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's working fine from here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

But not on my desktop, the URL has changed. Updated and added archive link. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

No thanks, not my bag, but good for you chasing up volunteers for these things. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Mite

On 30 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mite, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that relative to its length, one species of mite is the fastest animal on Earth? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mite. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mite), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Müllerian mimicry

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Müllerian mimicry you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shyamal -- Shyamal (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

That article

Hi Chiswick Chap. Seems that article got recreated. I'm thinking those two are socks. Thoughts? I was thinking of raising an investigation. Seems like a strong case of "quack". Similar style usernames, similar topics of articles (sort of...). _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Jake Brockman: I should think it more than likely, judging by the quacking noises. I've slapped a warning on the user. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I have raised the SPI. Let's see... _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Jungle Book

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Jungle Book you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Katolophyromai -- Katolophyromai (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)