Talk:Odontogriphus
Appearance
Geology Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Palaeontology Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Should we taxobox this puppy?--Mr Fink 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why not? Done Verisimilus T 12:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
POV & other question
I am not an expert on this subject, but I have a couple quick questions & observation regarding this article:
- In the lead, the sentence: "One dissident, who has maintained since 1990..." seems POV pushing, or maybe an attack. Maybe this should read, a "small minority" or something to that effect. (Is Butterfield the only one to hold these positions . . .otherwise is their consensus that Butterfield was/is forcing his findings?)
- I wikilinked Wiwaxia in the lead – at its first appearance – mostly to help the neophyte reader (ok, me).
- In the Phylogeny section, I think the issue raised in #1 persists:
- First, I think this section deserves its own "lead." Just a couple sentences explaining Caron findings versus Butterfields to summarize for the reader – similiar to the summary in the lead lead
- The prose reads that Caron's group is "interpreting" findings, while Butterfield is "arguing" and terms like "in his opinion" are used.
- Even the clade chart's seem to suggest a POV issue, based on the Caron group having a cite, whereas Butterfields is "???" – I am reading this correct?
- Would I be correct to assume that following Caron et al 2007, that there has been no formal reply by Butterfield?
I won't tag the article as having a point of view issue, but I was tempted. Let me say scientist arguing like this is great, (eg. the quote: "Many of Butterfield’s misconceptions" is classic), but I'd like to ensure that it is as neutral as possible before I green tick the DYK hook. So if you could help allay a layman's apprehension, I'd appreciate it. Mitico (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the article does not reflect Butterfield's views very favourably. The nature of science makes it difficult to assess the number of people who agree with Butterfield - papers aren't "put to the vote" etc - but he is certainly not alone in his discontent. Likewise, it is rare to have a sequence of replies continually debating fine points, so the lack of a "comeback" by Butterfield does not mean he's beaten; indeed I think he comments on the issue in passing in a 2008 paper (J of Paleo, "An early Cambrian Radula). I do agree with your points in general, though. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)