Talk:Wells and Wellington affair/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 23:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be able to get to this over the next few days. Looking forward to the read! Ajpolino (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent and informative article! I typically spend more time on the molecular biology side, so it was a pleasure to read something a bit more human. Since I have very few comments, I'll dispense with the review template:

Rationales and responses>Initial responses - At issue was that Wells and Wellington's... establishes it as the name of scientific record. This paragraph seems a bit out of place. It's sandwiched between paragraphs that are clearly about objections at the time, but this one is a bit of an aside distinguishing for the reader how researchers treat taxonomy vs nomenclature. I'm not sure it's necessary, but if you feel it is, perhaps it could be broken up and/or placed elsewhere.

I've moved most of this to the background section and integrated the rest into other paragraphs.

Perhaps Legacy should be its own full section, rather than a subsection of Rationales and responses?

Good idea!

Rationale and responses>Legacy - I'm not sure "phantom journal" would be widely understood by readers (even Monteith's piece uses quotes to distinguish the word). It's evocative, which is nice, but perhaps an alternative or very brief explanation is merited.

Reworded.

Same section - The third edition of the Code, released in 1986, considered photocopies to be a valid means of publishing and disseminating available nomenclature. it's not clear how this is part of the affair's legacy. Could you clarify?

I lack the requisite sources to tie this neatly into this article, so I've cut it.

Otherwise, the article clearly meets the GA criteria. No rush on the review, but I'll close this review if I don't hear from you in a month. If you need more time, just let me know and we can extend as needed. If we drastically disagree on anything, I'm sure we can find a third opinion without much trouble. I hope all is well! Ajpolino (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I've got a weirdly busy week ahead but will get to these as I can and I'll ping you when complete. Thanks for reading over this one; I loved digging around the history of this journal and its aftershocks. —Collin^{t c} 23:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've touched up everything you mentioned, Ajpolino. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the page! Kindly, —Collin^{t c} 20:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobamnertiopsis: Great, then I'm happy to mark this as a pass. Thanks again for the interesting read! Ajpolino (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]