![]() | Homology (biology) has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 17, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Sequence homology section is becoming as long and richly structured as the rest of the article put together, so I propose we split it out as a new article in its own right (currently, Sequence homology redirects here), leaving behind a "main" link and a short summary. It isn't badly cited but there are paragraphs lacking links that would benefit from such. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The criticism section is VERY poorly referenced, original research and should be removed, User:WilliamJamesHerath who has a conflict of interest is edit warring to include it against consensus. Theroadislong ( talk)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Aircorn ( talk · contribs) 22:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
As usual I am willing to discuss any comments that I make and am happy to be convinced that the article is fine without addressing the comment.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I have read the article and it is excellent. I feel it probably meets the GA criteria as is. However I have a few questions and comments. With articles like these I try to make sure they are accessible to the lay person and this mostly accomplishes that.
Homology is the relationship between biological structures or sequences that are derived from a common ancestorThis is accurate and sufficient, but I wonder if it could this be explained a little better as a starting definition for the average audience. Relationship seems to be a rather vague descriptor. I like the lead description better.
Primary homology is that initially conjectured by a researcher based on similar structure or anatomical connections, who states a hypothesis that two characters share an ancestry.Found this a little confusing in its wording. Would saying "primary homology is the initial hypothesis made by a researcher based on similar structure or anatomical connections" be simpler? Conjectured and hypothesis are pretty similar (especially to a lay person).
although some may be highly counter-intuitiveI am assuming this is referenced in "Brusca, R.C. & Brusca, G.J. 1990. Invertebrates. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland: P. 669". We have a lot of different examples, but is there one for it being counter-intuitive or at least an explanation on why it is? Is this a general statement or is this specific to arthropods.
when a species diverges into two separate species, the copies of a single gene in the two resulting species are said to be orthologous. Orthologs, or orthologous genes, are genes in different species that originated by vertical descent from a single gene of the last common ancestor.Isn't this saying the same thing?
Thus, the new study, detailed in the June 12 issue of the journal Science, shows that plants and animals have converged on an identical aerodynamic solution for improving their flight performance.. Would we not be better served citing the original study though instead of some pop science website?
I am satisfied that in its current state (even following the recently added comments and taking into account the concerns of Finnusertop) that this meets the GA criteria and is worthy of being labelled a good article. Passing. AIRcorn (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Can you create section name 'Homologous organs', so it will be easy to find someone. AlistairMcMilan ( talk) 16:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I have been working with paleontologists recently and was informed the illustration titled "The Cretaceous snake Pachyrhachis problematicus had hind legs (circled)." on this page actually depicts a Eupodophis. I made the change on Wikimedia Commons but am now trying to alert users of the image on Wikipedia so they may correct the mistake. FYI (to help rename without losing content) both Eupodophys and Pachyrhachis had hind legs, the main differences lie in the shape of the head.-- Flor WMCH ( talk) 14:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Homology (biology) has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 17, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Sequence homology section is becoming as long and richly structured as the rest of the article put together, so I propose we split it out as a new article in its own right (currently, Sequence homology redirects here), leaving behind a "main" link and a short summary. It isn't badly cited but there are paragraphs lacking links that would benefit from such. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The criticism section is VERY poorly referenced, original research and should be removed, User:WilliamJamesHerath who has a conflict of interest is edit warring to include it against consensus. Theroadislong ( talk)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Aircorn ( talk · contribs) 22:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
As usual I am willing to discuss any comments that I make and am happy to be convinced that the article is fine without addressing the comment.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I have read the article and it is excellent. I feel it probably meets the GA criteria as is. However I have a few questions and comments. With articles like these I try to make sure they are accessible to the lay person and this mostly accomplishes that.
Homology is the relationship between biological structures or sequences that are derived from a common ancestorThis is accurate and sufficient, but I wonder if it could this be explained a little better as a starting definition for the average audience. Relationship seems to be a rather vague descriptor. I like the lead description better.
Primary homology is that initially conjectured by a researcher based on similar structure or anatomical connections, who states a hypothesis that two characters share an ancestry.Found this a little confusing in its wording. Would saying "primary homology is the initial hypothesis made by a researcher based on similar structure or anatomical connections" be simpler? Conjectured and hypothesis are pretty similar (especially to a lay person).
although some may be highly counter-intuitiveI am assuming this is referenced in "Brusca, R.C. & Brusca, G.J. 1990. Invertebrates. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland: P. 669". We have a lot of different examples, but is there one for it being counter-intuitive or at least an explanation on why it is? Is this a general statement or is this specific to arthropods.
when a species diverges into two separate species, the copies of a single gene in the two resulting species are said to be orthologous. Orthologs, or orthologous genes, are genes in different species that originated by vertical descent from a single gene of the last common ancestor.Isn't this saying the same thing?
Thus, the new study, detailed in the June 12 issue of the journal Science, shows that plants and animals have converged on an identical aerodynamic solution for improving their flight performance.. Would we not be better served citing the original study though instead of some pop science website?
I am satisfied that in its current state (even following the recently added comments and taking into account the concerns of Finnusertop) that this meets the GA criteria and is worthy of being labelled a good article. Passing. AIRcorn (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Can you create section name 'Homologous organs', so it will be easy to find someone. AlistairMcMilan ( talk) 16:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I have been working with paleontologists recently and was informed the illustration titled "The Cretaceous snake Pachyrhachis problematicus had hind legs (circled)." on this page actually depicts a Eupodophis. I made the change on Wikimedia Commons but am now trying to alert users of the image on Wikipedia so they may correct the mistake. FYI (to help rename without losing content) both Eupodophys and Pachyrhachis had hind legs, the main differences lie in the shape of the head.-- Flor WMCH ( talk) 14:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)