Talk:Vavilovian mimicry/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Toadspike (talk · contribs) 10:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This article looks very interesting and not too long, so I'll take it on as my first GAN review. Toadspike [Talk] 10:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Please ask me or on the GA instructions talk page if you need any help. The key is just to check the article against the 6 criteria, making a list of items that you find; I respond to each item in the list individually (both here and in the article). If you decide to use a table, it works best if you do that only for the final results, as it's not very suitable for containing a list of items and replies to those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Just leaving a note that I'm fairly busy for a few days, so it's unlikely I'll finish this review before Sunday. If I haven't responded by Monday feel free to ping me as a reminder. Toadspike [Talk] 12:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Update: I've done the source spot-checks. @Chiswick Chap, once you've addressed the few minor points below I'll pass the review. Toadspike [Talk] 08:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Toadspike: Many thanks, all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• The caption for the first image could be a little clearer. I was confused about where to find the number 1, since each image also has a letter. It took me a while to realize that "1" referred to all of the images tagged with a 1. Also, what is plant 2? Is it flax? If not, maybe the image can be cropped to only include the relevant plant and fix the caption problem as well.
  • Extracted the relevant plant from the image, updated caption.
• The caption for the second image is a little confusing, since "forbidding" and "agreeable" are explained after the image. I propose moving the two sentences Vavilovian mimicry is disjunct, meaning that the mimic, model, and dupe involved are all from different species. In Georges Pasteur's terms, the model is "agreeable to the dupe" (e.g. farmers intentionally plant and harvest wheat), whereas in Batesian mimicry, the model is "forbidding to the dupe" (e.g., birds find wasps unpleasant, and try to avoid them). above the image to provide needed context. Otherwise, this is a very nice diagram – thanks for creating it!
  • Many thanks! Done.

Wow, you are really fast...The remaining criteria require me to look into the sources, which will take me a bit longer. In the meantime, my only comment about the prose is that there are a few terms and phrases which could be simplified, like "occurs with it" . I think you've generally done a very good job making this article understandable to non-biologists, though.

• Many thanks. Maybe 'alongside' is clearer than 'with' in the context.

Yep, looks a lot better.

• There are a few points where I'd use commas differently:
  • "enhanced by the weeding process which is an unintentionally selective force" --> "enhanced by the weeding process, which is an unintentionally selective force"
  • "which also tolerate poorer conditions, and like rye, grow as a weed" --> "which also tolerate poorer conditions and, like rye, grow as a weed"
  • "both the rye, and the farmer who grows and eats the rye" --> "both the rye and the farmer who grows and eats the rye" (this one is a little awkward either way, rewording might be a good idea)
    • Reworded slightly.
  • "from artificial as opposed to natural selection, and because the selective agent is a machine" --> "from artificial selection (as opposed to natural selection) and because the selective agent is a machine"
  • "while wild rye does not, and is thus destroyed" --> "while wild rye does not and is thus destroyed"
  • "looks much like the flax plant Linum usitatissimum, and occurs alongside it" --> "looks much like the flax plant Linum usitatissimum and occurs alongside it"
  • "when the crop plant is very young, and most vulnerable" --> "when the crop plant is very young and most vulnerable"
    • Edited slightly.

Most of these are unnecessary commas before "and", something I tend to do too much myself. Not sure how much of this is covered by the relevant MOS sections – feel free to object if I'd made any mistakes or if they don't technically fall under the GA criteria.

Possibly that is a language variant thing; spoken diction varies between the varieties of English, and we simply punctuate to match how we speak. I am comfortable with most of the usages here; I've indicated where I've made a change. Policy permits language variant and the associated diction to vary between articles.

• I think all three uses of "e.g." could be unnecessary. The first two are probably okay, but you should remove the comma after the second one for consistency. The third use of "e.g." in the diagram caption is inconsistent with the other three examples given, which do not use "e.g.".
  • Fixed, but we're really down among the weeds now, to coin a phrase. The Batesian model could be any type of wasp or bee, whereas the Batesian dupe is basically always a predator, while the Vavilovian dupe is always a farmer or his equipment.
    • Good point, I forgot that some of those items in parentheses are not actually examples.

Source review

• Source 2 [Pasteur 1982]: Nearly all statements cited to this source check out. The only exceptions is "...a prominent Russian plant geneticist of the early 20th century. Vavilov described as 'secondary crops' cereals such as oats and rye that he believed derived from weeds that mimicked other cereals." The first half (prominent Russian plant geneticist) should be easy to source, you can probably rip a source from Vavilov's article. Pasteur cites the examples in the second half (the actual definition is OK) to note 135, "Sinskaia, E. N., Beztuzheva, A. A. 1931. (In Russian) The forms of Camelina sativa in connection with climate, flax, and man. Trudy Priklad. Bot. Genet. Selekt. 25:98-200", which is not Vavilov. Either you can find Vavilov's article to prove that he listed "oats and rye", or you can alter the wording of that sentence to make it clear that he didn't mention those specific examples.
  • The description of Vavilov can be cited to Source 1.
    • Done, and repeated the McElroy ref: McElroy quotes Vavilov on rye's mimicry.

• Source 5 [Wickler 1968]: This is a 264 page book. Could you please cite some specific page numbers?
  • • Actually the ref already cites Chapter 4 which is a modest page range, but I've added page numbers for you anyway.
  • To help you out: The paragraph "Rye is a hardier plant..." is backed up by pages 42–43.
  • The paragraph on oats "This fate is shared by oats..." is covered by page 44. However, the source mentions wild oats as Avena fatua, while the article lists Avena sterilis. The source also mentions "hairs, beard, and coarse ears" as other features of oats that disappeared due to mimicry, which you could mention in the article if you want.
    • Science has moved on; Wickler was right about its being a wild oat but wrong about the actual species. I've added a ref for A. sterilis.
  • Actually, I think the "beard" refers to the awns, so it's already been mentioned.
    • Yes, probably sufficient here.
  • "The flax-dodder..." paragraph is backed up by this source. However, I think it omits some important details: 1. The source says "There is one plant parasite...", implying that this is very unusual and possibly the only parasite where this effect has occurred 2. Cultivation of this plant is actually detrimental to humans, which isn't explicitly stated in the article. 3. The word "parasite" is never mentioned, when that's the most notable part. By the way, this is also on page 44.
    • Edited and linked. You may be right about the unusual coincidence of parasitism and mimicry but I'm not sure we can go further here. The advantage of mimicry to a parasite is in any case similar to the advantage to a weed: both benefit from being mistaken for the crop.
  • "The gold-of-pleasure is a descendant of Camelina gabrata, a wild species; its subspecific name linicola means "the one that lives with flax"." – it looks like this sentence is not covered by the source.
    • Removed.
  • Otherwise, the false flax paragraph is covered on pages 41–42.
    • Noted.
  • I think "Weeding of the adult plant is impractical" doesn't put enough emphasis on this general truth. This doesn't apply only to false flax – the source makes clear that no weeding of any plant is effectively possible on agricultural fields, because the fields are too large and crops would be trampled. This should probably be moved to the top of the section, and it should be made clear that this applies beyond just false flax. (Nowadays there are laser technologies that perhaps mean this is no longer true, but historically it always has been, and that's what mattered for the evolution of these plants.)
    • Edited. Your claim has logic to it but is not entirely correct; hand-pulling of cereal weeds is resorted to in serious cases, limited by time and cost, and not necessarily by the risk of damage. Laser-robotic-pulling of course continues this activity. But whether by human or machine, the activity unavoidably furthers the mimicry.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.