Talk:Life/Draft

APPROVED Version 1.1

Congratulations once again. Re-approval complete.

Discussion for Version 1.1 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

Strategies and lessons for further approvals

My 4cents worth.

Understanding how constables operate

SUMMARY: TELL EM IN BLACK AND WHITE ONLY WHAT THEY MUST KNOW and all THEY MUST KNOW TO ACTION AN APPROVAL. RESERVE THE APPROVAL BOX FOR THIS. KEEP IT DIRECT AND SIMPLE. ie YES, editor 1, YES Editor 2, Yes Editor 3, URL here. DEADLINE IS EXPIRED WITH CONSENSUS.

Approved version 1.1 shows in my view, that the citizendium copy-editing environment is almost unmanageable, and certainly time wasting. I personally apologise to the other authors and editors for the restrictions my efforts to manage this unwieldy system have placed on their contributions. I was expecting the process to take place much more quickly.

Holding up edits of substance to allow copy-editing is only acceptable if that copy editing is done quickly and efficiently. This is not being achieved, and it is unfair on authors to subject them to such constraints for more than a minimum time period. I'm pessimistic about forum discussions solving this, but hopeful that we can get the biology editors to develop a solution in terms of agreed informal biology standard approval practices to save us all the time wasting over trivia. One of the powers we have is editor consensus and familiarity with the science and we should use it to control the legal impositions that are currently, in my view, strangling performance.

Some new problems are emerging. Before this approval event I had assumed agreement of three editors was enough to provide assurance that an unambiguous decision to approve can be put to the constables.

But new issues such as (if I read it right) proof that silent editors are in agreement are now being raised in discussions (see above), and these threaten to make it impossible for editors to tell a constable that the article is ready. Surely this is overkill to allow error correction to take place? What do others think about this gloomy assessment? I'd want explicit statements in approval rules that such complications will not derail copy-editing. We would wait ages for all editor to check in

In my view, such possibilities threaten to render our already cumbersome process completely unworkable, and we must try and alert other editors and authors to the urgent need for a solution to this process confusion.

I think we must tackle the copy editing issue first as it's simpler. All of the science issues raised were completely (ie cell types a protein numbers) uncontroversial and authors were only grappling with the best form of words and the best sources to cite, but it seems that healthy editorial interaction was interpreted as dissent, when it was not, in my opinion - just routine editorial work. If there was real dissent about an issue of weight, that's a different matter. Seroius objections have to be listened to, but lets devise a error correction process thats faster and efficient.

To finish for now , we just need to get organised, and treat the constable as an unknowing legal robot who does as he's told. This is OK. Constables want a simple routine job. They do not like legal head-aches. For them, all they need is editor YES YES YES , and signatures. We (the editors) just have to understand how a robot can be made to do tricks. We need to craft and use the rules to make rapid progress, and make those legalistic robots zip through the approvals.(Give them a bone and a pat if they do the job quickly) For this I think it would be good if we put all the stuff constables need to know about an approval decision in the approval area, and state explicitly to ignore discussions on the talk page itself. i.e keep it very simple and clearcut. David Tribe 04:06, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

David, dear, you - of course- are a constable, and so your comparisons to Robots is all in the family. Hopefully, there will be a position for an Editor to help co-ordinate these matters, I have applied for one - but the job description will have to be, rightfully, agreed upon in Executive Council. You have done a heroic job here.We thank you for it. Nancy Sculerati 08:06, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks Nancy. Yes I wear different hats. As an editor I'm different to a constable, and an author. At CZ we are evolving towards having different roles which provide checks and balances, and thats good. Authors want facts, creativity freedom and an audience. Editors want style, quality, verification of contention, themes and readability. Constables want legality and due process -they hav'nt got the time or skill to be editors as well (I think that's what Matt Innis is saying too)David Tribe 16:14, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

PS I have just learn't with pleasure that Nancy Schulerati has been appointed to a Managing editor role which will tackle and almost certainly resolve the issues just listed. We now thankfully take our lead from Nancy, and the above thoughts, are, well, just thoughts that Nancy will factor in to her judgments and activity. The solution has arrived and we work with Nancy on this. A great decision by Larry. David Tribe 16:38, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Yep, David, I agree with you 100%. When a constable is asked to come to a page, it would be much easier if you editors had all your ducks in a row editor 1,2,3 all signed off in the same place, whether in the approval area (which sounds like a good idea) or at the bottom of the page. Constables, by definition, are not allowed to make judgements about content - whether the change appears like a copy edit or not. Lord knows that changing one word can change meaning, I sure don't want a constable to assume anything that important, do you? That is up to the editors. I think Nancy's solution of Editorial Manager is just the ticket to be able to make simple copy edits now. --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:12, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Here's a way it could work. Each working group could work out among themselves the details of how they approve articles and what types of changes can be made at the copyediting stage. Then, one editor can check the final, copyedited version and check that all the approval rules are satisfied, and can tell the constables, "I certify that this particular version meets the criteria and has been approved, and that the article can be considered approved by editors 1,2 and 3." Editors 2 and 3 may have approved a slightly different version, and editor 1 is certifying that there were only minor copyediting changes since then. (Some editors might want to specify that when they approve an article, they're approving only the very specific version and that they would have to look again after any copyediting. The certifying editor would have to be aware of any such restrictions among their working group.) --Catherine Woodgold 18:30, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

Thats similar to what we've just attempted to go through, Catherine. I acted as the editor go-between, but unfortunately from my point of view, the dialogue with the constable went round and round in circles for various reasons. Despite me saying that there existed an approved copy with legal support, he kept on being worried there was dissent even though if you looked hard at the record, an approved version had passed the deadline with no adverse comments. The worries expressed after the deadline prevented the earlier approved version from being activated. It didnt really matter whether the worries were irrelevant to the approval that we had spend many days working hard to finish, or whether the worries were trivial, the worries were there. I had to peer closely at the talk page records for some hours to try and clear through the confusion. The constable wasn't able to.

There is a big gap between what we all want to do (which is close to what you are suggesting), what seems straightforward, and what actually happens on the wiki. The current solution is to get a intelligent person to make a decision (Nancy) and take responsibility for it, rather that relying on the complex interaction with the wiki software of several people who are each unsure what the rules allow them to do. I think it will work, but well all have to work together to ensure Nancy has procedural (legal) support to do the copy-editing. That's very important, so that we establish an efficient, workable fast copy-editing process. David Tribe 19:58, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

David, I think you did a great job co-ordinating the approval. It looks as though there still seems to be some misunderstanding about what happened, though. I followed every one of your comments, but from my point of view, your problem was the inability to show three editors agreeing on the NEW version. I could have actioned the 18th version at any time, but was asked to wait till you had "a triumverate"[1]. The problem was that the date that was in the box to be approved was not the 18th, it was the 21st. With the way the rule was written, I still would not have okayed it, because Chris (an editor) suggested that the changes were more than just copy edits. Larry's last minute change of the rule is what allowed it to go through for the 21st, otherwise I'd still be waiting for Gareth. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:25, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

I believe it's technically possible for anyone to create a page "life/Proof" or to create a page in their user space e.g. "User:Catherine Woodgold/life (Proof)". This may or may not be a good idea. I think it was Larry who pointed out that the page history would not all be in the same place. For that matter, the first time an article is approved, it may make sense to move (rather than copy) the page to "pagename/Draft" so that the edit history from the beginning is all in one place, at "pagename/Draft". --Catherine Woodgold 18:40, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

Glitch in the printed versions of Life

When I print out Life with IE on a Windows XP to a Laser printer, the Image of the Leonardo sketch obscures text in the autonomous agents section. Possibly the Image should be coded or positioned differently. With Firefox browser still only the first 12 pages print. Possibly the issue is file size related David Tribe 19:38, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

The word "organize"

If the word "organize" is really a technical term with a specific meaning in this context, then I think it would be worthwhile to provide a definition for it in the article. I think, though, that it is rather a word whose meaning is closely related to the answer to the question "what is life?", an answer which emerges from the article as a whole and cannot easily be pinned down in a short definition. Therefore those who have an idea of what it means in this context experience a feeling of understanding every time the word is used, while perhaps those who haven't gotten the message yet merely see the same poorly-defined word used over and over again.

It reminds me of something B.F. Skinner wrote. Apparently he had been criticized for using the word "contingency" too often. He argued that he used the word that often because what he was writing was about contingencies, and that if he had been writing about mushrooms, the word "mushroom" would have appeared as often. In my opinion, a well-written article about mushrooms might use the word a fairly large number of times, but not as often as Skinner was using "contingency". Pronouns and other devices would be used to reduce the repetition of the word. Ways would be found to occasionally use more general or more specific words instead, or words for the organisms at particular stages of development, incidentally giving the reader information about taxonomy and vocabulary while reducing repetition.

The use of the word "organize" in this article gives me the same feeling as Skinner's use of the word "contingency": it seems to me that the word is being used as a one-word thesis or as an anchor in the sense of Neuro-Linguistic Programming: that the word is being asked to carry an amount of meaning usually carried by a sentence, paragraph or perhaps a whole essay, rather than what is appropriate for a single noun or verb to carry. When this is done, it becomes more difficult to analyse and criticize what is being said. Clarity of thinking suffers.

When I provided a list of alternative terms above, I was not claiming that these terms are synonyms for "organize" that can be substituted into the article with no change in meaning. Actually, the only one that looks to me like a really good synonym for "organize" is "orchestrate", and I think it will feel overly repetitive if it's used more than one to three times in the article (two might be too many). Rather, I was suggesting that we might spend less time talking about organization and more time talking about other aspects of the answer to the question "what is life?" There may not be an equally apt way to say the things that are being said with the word "organize", but there may be other things that can be said instead that would be more interesting to a reader who might feel he or she has heard enough about organizing for now.

I note that the philosopher of science D.M. Walsh quoted in the article (see below) doesn't seem to share the sentiment that the use of the word "organize" is absolutely necessary to get across these particular ideas.

Philosopher of science D.M. Walsh puts it this way: "The constituent parts and processes of a living thing are related to the organism as a whole by a kind of 'reciprocal causation'." In other words, the organization of the components determine the behavior of the system, but that organization arises from more than the set of its internal components. How the whole system behaves as it interacts with its environment determines how those components organize themselves, and so novel properties of the system 'emerge' that characterize neither the environment nor that set of internal components.

In the above section of the article, I would like to cut down the use of forms of the word "organize" from three down to two or one. I note that the fact that the word "organization" appears twice in one sentence is not due to a semantic necessity in this case, but is only necessitated by the way the sentence is — ahem — organized.  :-) So I suggest saving one use of the word by changing the sentence to:

In other words, the behavior of the system is determined by the organization of the components, which in turn arises from more than just the set of those internal components.

Alternatives for "how those components organize themselves" in the sentence after that one in the above passage include:

how those components arrange themselves

how those components are arranged

how those components inter-relate

how those components mutually interact

how those components position themselves with respect to one another

the pattern of interaction of the components

the pattern of interaction that is set up among the components

which sets of states are accessible via the chaotic interactions of the internal components (I like this one -- it brings in "chaos" which I think is not mentioned often enough in the article -- in fact, the word doesn't appear once in the article itself, although it appears twice in titles in the bibliography etc.)

which feedback loops become established among those components

into what internal structure those components formulate themselves

Later I expect to come up with specific suggestions for reducing occurrences of the word "organize" (and/or increasing occurrences of other concepts such as "chaos") in other parts of the article. --Catherine Woodgold 17:45, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Catherine: I regard your persistence commendable. You have forced me to realize how critical for us to explain to the reader precisely what we mean by 'organization'. I have operated too cavalierly in thinking the reader could draw from experience to appreciate the appositeness of the word as applied to living systems. Therefore I have written a lower level section to inculcate the reader.

Once done, and done properly — it may need work — we no longer have to concern ourselves over the repetitiveness of 'organization' or its derivative forms than we have to over the repetitiveness of 'living' or 'life' or 'organism' or 'system'. We must not, in my opinion, marginalize or deemphasize 'organization', once clearly contextualized, because living things do not 'self-order' as much as they 'self-organize' — the 'order' enjoys the special feature of functional goal-oriented dynamic coordination. We must, in my opinion, instill the reader with 'organization' in that sense as a defining characteristic of living systems.

The principle of parsimony applies here. We want to explain living systems as 'organized' systems, and say what we mean by 'organization' as applied to living systems. Let us do that. Check out the new subsection. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 21:45, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

The new section adds 17 occurrences of the word "organize" bringing the total in the article to 90. This is the opposite of what I was recommending. In my opinion it increases the tediousness of the article and adds little or no useful information. In the new section you say "'Dynamic', 'coordinated', and 'goal-directed functionality' characterize 'organization' in biological systems. The words 'organize' and 'organization' should invoke those properties." A better way to present this information without boring the reader would be to delete this new section, and replace some of the other occurrences of the word "organize" with "dynamic", "coordinated" and "goal-directed functionality".

It's OK to repeat words such as "the" large numbers of times; that doesn't bore the reader. Repeating a phrase such as "goal-directed functionality" more than about 3 to 5 times in the article would sound overly repetitive and bore the reader. The word "organize" lies somewhere between the two.

The idea that life emerges by means of organization only needs to be said once. --Catherine Woodgold 17:37, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Catherine, I begin again by commending your persistence. We ignore the wisdom of pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate at our peril, the 14h century thinker William of Occam advised. We do not wish to bore the reader, the reader can only find herself bored — the reasons, situational and personal. 'Organization', 'as contextualized in the article', especially with the new section motivated by your comments, must become as familiar to the reader as 'energy', evolution', and 'molecular' — if the reader wishes to explain 'living' from the perspectives of the article. Repetitio mater memoriae. You have made a real contribution in motivating the new section that tries to highlight the word's centrality and explicate its specific meaning as applied to living systems. In advancing your argument based on word count by boosting the count with the clarifying effort only serves, in my view, to weaken it. The extensive enlightening literature on the principles underlying the activity of living emphasizes 'organization', as we do. I would love to hear your views of those references and of our article's organization. Cheers. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 19:57, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

We have a dispute here. I oppose the new section, for the reasons stated above, and I object to the great increase in occurrences of the word "organize" after I had already suggested decreasing it. I had no intention whatsoever of motivating an increase in occurrences of the word "organize", and I dislike having my comments described as "motivat[ing]" such an increase. (I did not wish to motivate the author in this way; the author can only find himself motivated, for reasons situational and personal.)

I doubt that the word "organize" appears as densely in as long passages in the material listed in the bibliography as it does in this article. If it does in a few of the bibliographic references, then I suggest: have one section of the article, one to three paragraphs, which attempts to explain the marvelous, fascinating and difficult-to-explain relationship between organization and life, and have the word "organize" appear as densely in that section as it does in the references (or as densely as most of the authors of the article agree is necessary). And then stop. The rest of the article can be about other aspects of life. Otherwise, the reader, male or female, may be left thinking, "Why am I having difficulty focussing my attention on this article when it's about such a fascinating topic?" There is no need to go on at length about one topic in an encyclopedic article, which is supposed to be a summary.

By the way, usually when supplying a definition one does not feel compelled to repeat the word being defined 17 times. I take this as further evidence that it is difficult to explain what is meant by the word -- that the meaning of the word is being built up by using it in a variety of very similar contexts rather than by stating its definition, and therefore that it does not have a specific, technical definition but is being used as a repository for a complex of ideas being built up in the reader's mind.

I don't understand why my argument seems to you to be "weaken[ed]" by adding the 17 new occurrences of the word in the new section intended to define it.

In my opinion, the quote you supply from Occam seems to suggest reducing the unnecessarily large number of occurrences of the word. --Catherine Woodgold 07:43, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

In my opinion, this seems to be a content, rather than copyediting, disagreement. Both sides have been very well-argued. I would tend to have a bit more sympathy with Anthony's point-- sometimes a spade is a spade, and despite concerns about repetition we should call it a spade. But that's my non-expert view. Can we get an uninvolved biology editor to weigh in here? --Mike Johnson 12:06, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Mike, I think you are correct as to the fine point here. Rather than Catherine making edits (as she is certainly allowed to do), she is asking if there are places where another word would be considered a copyedit so that she does not disturb the content. Perhaps a closer look by Anthony could find a few spots. --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:32, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

I do not think the word organized is at all "overused" in context. Anthony's ideas are subtle and intruiging, not to mention frequently brilliant, and I hope that he will not have his muse stifled by readers counting the number of times he uses any word and calling him to task for it, repeatedly. Now, of course---the ideas themselves are always worth a good argument. That's what we all live for, I expect. En garde! :-) Nancy Sculerati 12:34, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Functioning as an author here as I have done in the past. In my reading of the article with its use of "organize" (and words from that root), it is useful and needed to have repetition of the word as it provides a continuity of theme that makes the article easier to follow. If this were a biography, or a novel, or some such, repetition of wording is and should be avoided. But copyediting for such things is not like copyediting for science materials, which carries a set of unique concerns. In an article about science, variation must be conceded to the primal need for use of the precise language of science and the meanings assigned to words. We simply, and forthrightly, must concede to Dr. Sebastian's extremely knowledgeable assertion that "'Organization', 'as contextualized in the article' ... must become as familiar to the reader as 'energy', evolution', and 'molecular' — if the reader wishes to explain 'living' from the perspectives of the article. Repetitio mater memoriae." In science, less, and parsimony, is more.

Idea: we need a Science Copyeditors Workgroup.

---Stephen Ewen 15:44, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Thank you, everyone, for your opinions. I accept that the word "organize" is not considered overused by (apparently) anyone other than myself. I would like to point out, though, that I don't agree with Matt Innis' interpretation of my comments. Rather, Mike Johnson correctly understands that I see this more as a content issue than a copyediting issue. I would still like to see some things covered in more depth (or at all), for example, chaos and attractors; the relationship between natural selection and the tendency of organisms to regulate their internal and external environments; and antioxidants, which are an important part of how organisms maintain their state of being far from equilibrium; equilibrium in our oxygen-laden atmosphere being little but CO2 and water. I would also like to see more information that the typical reader would not have known before reading the article. I think there's only one clear example in the article of something I didn't know before reading it: that is the bit about there being two different kinds of membranes. I'd like to see more interesting tidbits like that. Possibilities might include: how many phyla are known, and when was the most recent discovery of a new one? How does the genetic code of mitochondria differ from that of other parts of a cell? How deep inside the Earth is life known to exist, and how far up into the atmosphere? What is the longest-living known multicellular organism? Better yet, more interesting and surprising things that biologists know that I don't know yet, if they can be fit smoothly into the article here and there. --Catherine Woodgold 19:20, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Catherine, Mike is a constable (as am I, but not in this article because I have contributed to it as an author) and was meaning that that this is a dispute that the Constabulary has no authority to get involved in. For the Constabulary, copyediting, or any sort of matter related to wording, is a content issue; thus, constables have no authority over such things (except in blatant cases, e.g., articles that to nearly all constables would obviously not be encyclopedic; "edit warring" over content - obviously, neither an issue here). Any and all content disputes that cannot be resolved by dialog of involved editors and authors needs to be decided by an uninvolved editor of the Biology Workgroup. That's the the way CZ does conflict resolution over content, and it is tightly summarized here. Stephen Ewen 03:57, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Well said, Stephen. And Catherine, I also *really* enjoy those little interesting tidbits. Reading an encyclopedia article can and should be fun. Re: the additional things, if you could enumerate what things you'd like integrated into the article, perhaps we could discuss your suggestions and gear up to write them into the next draft?

Just a short digression- I think we'll soon (if not already) have the best article on Life that anyone has written... ever. Speaking pragmatically, I'm very happy to see that, though we may be quickly getting into the realm of diminishing returns here. There are a lot of important article plots yet laying fallow. But as the first rule of wikis seems to be to encourage people to write about what they're excited about, I'll just cheer about the progress here and start planning the article I've been meaning to Citizendium-ize. :) --Mike Johnson 13:20, 28 April 2007 (CDT) Edit: I see the "Suggestions for additional content" section has beat me to it.

This article is not about the Biosphere, it is about the concept of living. No wonder you are disappointed Catherine! A reader may certainly prefer a different article, and perhaps the best way to have biologists write one is to request it. here. [2] Nancy Sculerati 13:39, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

I should add, you may also start one yourself here: biosphere. :) --Mike Johnson 14:25, 28 April 2007 (CDT) Absolutely! Even better! Nancy Sculerati 14:29, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Function

Id like to suggest that the article lacks a theme about function and physiology. I see it is alluded to, say in Systems, but its a cell key concept in living behaviour and I suggest it could be developed. What do others think? David Tribe 08:13, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

David, I agree we need more function and physiology. More specifically, a little metabolism, too. One thing we might include: the Smith/Morowitz cogent argument for the universality of the reductive, or reverse, TCA cycle and its implications for free-energy capture by chemiautotrophs situated in a redox free-energy flow (Smith E, Morowitz HJ. (2004) Universality in intermediary metabolism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:13168-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0404922101).

This fit in with Orign of Life or Evolution of cells better I think.David Tribe 06:11, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Did you have some specific points re function/physiology you think we need to make? --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 18:14, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Suggestions for additional content

Now that we have a core article on 'Life', we can begin thinking about additional content that says within the theme of the article, or that resonates harmoniously with the theme, namely the principles that render systems alive and able to stay alive and to perpetuate life.

David Tribe suggests we expand on 'function' and 'physiology'.

Catherine Woodgold suggests discussing:

• chaos
• role of natural selection in homeostasis and niche construction
• special role of antioxidants
• more taxonomy
• mitochondrial genetics
• distribution of living things in the biosphere
• life spans

The challenge, I think, especially as others suggest their ideas: what stays on theme or resonates coherently with theme, what deserves its own article? Some leaning toward new articles, which 'Life' can touch upon as appropriate and coherent — new articles contributing to CZ growth.

--Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 20:00, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

We need more articles. Most of all. For example, we have not yet worked on Physiology - forget about "function". Nancy Sculerati 20:16, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

I think Ive gotta agree with Nancy. Ill focus my efforts on other articles David Tribe 06:09, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Whether life evolved separately more than once

Anthony Sebastian said in an edit summary: "Catherine, you edited a direct quote from Professor Woese's paper. I reverted back to the original, as I do not want to put words in his mouth". Oops! That was careless of me. Sorry about that. Thanks for catching it. Nevertheless, the quote seems to be saying that life evolved separately in 3 distinct lines, while the abstract of the paper referenced to the quote seems to be saying that all life was interconnected by horizontal gene transfer, i.e. that life extant today did not evolve from scratch in more than one separate line. Perhaps a few words could be added after the quote to clarify. --Catherine Woodgold 22:31, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

I took a long look at it, and I believe this may be moved to (and expanded within) the "Evolutionary aspects of 'living'" section. Once we delve into the nuances of and controversies in life's evolutionary past, the clarity of the bullet-point-style of this section suffers. --Mike Johnson 12:08, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

I made a mistake

I mistakenly edited the approved version of Life, "organic chemistry as informatics". When I discovered my error, I restored the approved text. Then I made my desired edits on the draft version.

Why can someone edit an approved version, anyway?

--Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 17:43, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

When you became an Editorial Personel person, you were given SYSOP privileges. You need these to make new accounts and to make users editors. SYSOPS can edit protected pages. Just be careful. I made a mistake too. I copied some code of an image in the Dog article to use it to place a thumbnail picture of a different image in Contraception (medical). I had a couple of windows open in my browser, and somehow I saved the wrong one- managing to put a picture of French oral contraceptives in the puppy section of Dog. Before I figured it out, Chris Day-always vigilent!-demanded to know why I was changing an approved article without even mentioning it on the talk page. That alerted me to the fact that something was up. Once he saw the image, he figured it out. Total mistake. I corrected it, too- and I'd say no harm done. Lesson learned. :) Nancy Sculerati 18:15, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Demanded? I asked, prior to realising it was a mistken edit, "Are these changes even allowed to go through without a 'toapprove' template? " This wasn't a fair question? Certainly no harm done, but sysops do need to be more alert, especially when deleting pages. Chris Day (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Nice image

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/b_g/169456947/ Stephen Ewen 13:49, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
• Cool photo, but I think this article already has the perfect amount of images already. --Charles Sandberg 15:04, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

changes to date

Changes since last approval. We might want to consider a update approval soon. Chris Day (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Chris, the subpage template appears odd.  ?? --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 13:04, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Approval time

Since the last approval there have been a significant number of changes. See this link for the current updates. I know I want to modify the plant development note. If anyone else sees changes they are worried about now is the time to make comments or edits. I'll hold off adding the ToApprove template until I have read all the changes. But I'll place it soon. Chris Day (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Inconsistent spellings and language usage

As this is likely to be Article of the Week, could someone please copyedit it into American English? For example, the picture by da Vinci is described in the undertext initially as a Foetus, and in the next phrase as a fetus. This is SO obvious when the words are almost adjacent, and looks very unprofessional. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:59, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

I'd be happy to do that, but first need the input of a principal American author on this article's usages of 'single quotes' and "double quotes". I know of no American style that uses 'single quotes', except for "making 'quotes within quotes', as such". But this could mean nothing more than that I am not aware of the style. Please advise.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 12:48, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, well maybe the quotes style is British, but most of the spellings are US. We have to set the style first, but is it so difficult to change all the single quotes? If so, then make it UK English... and I suppose a British person should copyedit it! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:02, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

As a very minor American author, and a zealous copyeditor of, at least, my own stuff, I'm 99.99% certain that double quotes are always used for quotations, with a single quote for a quotation within a quotation. The Brit system is, generally, the reverse. So all you have to do is decide (decisely) which system you're gonna use, then apply it throughout. (See an old John Barth story told entirely in dialogue [about Ulysses, I think], in which the dialog ended up as " ' " ' " ' " ' " etc. etc., quotations within quotations within quotations about 7 layers deep. Just Barth showing off....) Hayford Peirce 13:12, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I use single-quotes, e.g., 'abcdef', when I want to call attention to the word within. I might call attention to a word for the purpose of mentioning the word, as in "'black' has five letters" — i.e., I mention the word, or refer to it. On the other hand, I might call attention to a word in order to alert the reader to my use of a special word, or my special use of a word. For example, with 'emerge' in a sentence, I want to alert the reader to something special in the use of 'emerge', which special use the sentence implies or partially defines.

I tend to reserve double-quotes for words or phrases or sentences or paragraphs that I attribute to someone, someone the readers knows who by the context or by a source-citation. Also, double-quotes for article titles, as "Notes of a Bird-Watcher", by Robin Feathers, when stated in the text. Book titles like, On the Origin of Species, I put in italics when stated in the text.

"Methinks the..[gentleman] doth protest too much."

I use italics for emphasis without necessarily calling attention to the italicized word itself.

I would like to keep that convention. I could put an explanatory footnote about the usage of single and double-quotes. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 15:25, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

If consensus against that, I would change single quotes to italics (or to bold non-italicized) for calling attention to the word, and use bold italics for emphasis. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 15:39, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Final adjustments needed for revised Approval

If your quotations are all in double quotes, then that is the US version. I don't have a problem with single quotes [when the quotation style is double quotes] or double quotes [when the quotation style is single quotes] for picking out words or phrases. Nor do I think it so unusual that it needs any footnotes to explain the convention.

So, if there is no dissent, could you put this completely into US English, Anthony? We need this for the next approval, which is also needed for the Article of the Week approval! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:39, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

How about moving the appendices to subpages?Gareth Leng 04:24, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes. Certainly this is needed. Maybe even some of the content could be reallocated to subpages. I note that the format is also wrong in this article: we need the horizontal form template to be inserted. Any offers to do this? [I don't know how] --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 04:34, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I changed the subpage template to subpages9 template ont he Draft version to let you see what it looks like. I think we have to do it on all the subpages as well, but eventually it will change to just plain ole subpages (without the 4 or 9). --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:30, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Switched to subpages9 on all the pages. Let me know if it's missing something. This is my first time switching this. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:05, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Martin: I will make sure that all quotations use double-quotes, all 'calling-attention-to-specific-words/phrases' use single-quotes, italics used for emphasis, bold-italics for stong emphasis. That seem okay? --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 15:24, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

sounds good. can you also remove any britishms that might lurk there? Then the very last thing is for someone to move text to subpages, but let's deal with the language style first. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:08, 2 September 2007 (CDT)