Perhaps surprisingly, there are no FAs about academic journals! The Australian Journal of Herpetology might seem at a glance like an inauspicious choice to be the first contender: the journal published just four issues and a supplemental series between 1981 and 1985 before disappearing. However, behind these numbers is a wild story about two rogue researchers (one an undergrad student, the other a high school teacher) who commandeered this unassuming journal and published three papers of their own with no peer review in which they collectively proposed "more taxonomic changes [to Australia's reptiles] than had been proposed by all other authors in the previous decade." Their efforts ignited controversy in the herpetological community, leading to an appeal to the highest body in faunal scientific nomenclature to officially suppress their work. Did it succeed? And what aftereffects of their "terrorist tactics in taxonomy" are still felt today? I'm looking forward to any comments and guidance towards ensuring this article meets FA criteria. Thanks! —Collintc 19:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One other note: I'm especially interested in making sure the terminology used in this article is precise. I am not a taxonomist/nomenclaturist myself but want to ensure that the wording used reflects the realities and nuances of both taxonomy and nomenclature, so if you're keen on either of those fields, your feedback is hugely appreciated! —Collintc 22:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Image review—pass
Images are freely licensed, or else correctly tagged fair use. (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will take a better look later, but the phrase "Wells and Wellington" appears 46 times. Can we vary this, using they, both etc. Overall the writing here is excellent. Ceoil (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trimmed to 22 instances between the lede/body. Unfortunately, this affair was dominated by two guys versus pretty much everyone else in the world who cared about amphibians and reptiles, so I had to use W&W a lot but I hope this is preferable. Thank you! —Collintc 22:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does ref 29 (Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature) really need to mention every author. Presumably they didn't all gather and form a consensus that "Wells and Wellington's case was cited during a different ICZN case initiated nearly three decades later, concerning the taxonomic work of another amateur Australian herpetologist, Raymond Hoser." Ceoil (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trimmed to 18 using display-authors to match the other ref (21) with the next highest number of authors. —Collintc 18:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have made light c/e's., nothing major, the article is clearly FA standard on prose, although agree with Graham below re some overly long and complex sentences...eg He further wrote that 205 subspecies or synonyms taken from a 1983 book by Harold Cogger and colleagues were elevated or resurrected to species status with no further discussion and that several museums outside Australia confirmed with him that specimens in their collections that the researchers stated they had examined had never been lent or shown to either of the duo. I'm not especially bright, but not thick either, and had to read t to read this a few times.
No issue with the quality of the sources used, but the formatting I have no idea about as I dont understand how to cite scientific journals.
Would you mind emailing versions of, J. B.; Thomson, S. A.; Georges, A. (September 2001); Shea, G. M. (December 1987), Wallach, V.; Wüster, W.; and Broadley, D. G. (September 2009) Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we take a second look at the long sentences that are used with a view to splitting them? This is one for example: "He further wrote that 205 subspecies or synonyms taken from a 1983 book by Harold Cogger and colleagues were elevated or resurrected to species status with no further discussion and that several museums outside Australia confirmed with him that specimens in their collections that the researchers stated they had examined had never been lent or shown to either of the duo." Ironically, these are called "snakes". Graham Beards (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've read through a couple of times; fascinating article, and very well written. I have just a few points:
I think the first paragraph of the lead should give the date the journal ceased publication; I assume this would be with issues 3-4, and then mention of the supplemental series in 1985.
Done.
The footnote listing the 23 available names says "includes" but in fact it's a complete list.
The 23 species thing did refer to the complete list of reptiles but I was unable to find a similar checklist of amphibians so I used "at least" to hedge my bets. I just found one frog with a W&W name and added that in, also removing the "at least" because I don't think any are missing now.
Herpetologists described what they interpreted as being issues with the duo's species descriptions including that they had described species without providing adequate diagnostic characteristics, established new taxa without identifying or examining type species, and named species in trivial ways (including, for instance, naming a species after Darth Vader). Another snake; can you slice it up?
Sliced it up and also added a little more to the second half that I'd missed before!
Wells alone published other taxonomic works in another vanity journal, the Australian Biodiversity Record: why "another"? We haven't said that Aust. J. Herpet. is a vanity journal, and bizarre though the story is, that doesn't seem to be the best way to describe it. I think just "a vanity journal" would do.
The "another" here was referring to the Australian Herpetologist, not the AJH I believe, but you're right that I don't think the article needed it.
Nonetheless, Van Wallach, Wolfgang Wüster, and Donald G. Broadley wrote that 25 years after the affair, "taxonomy remain[ed] as vulnerable to acts of nomenclatural vandalism as it was then". I think if you rephrase this a little it would read more naturally, and you wouldn't have to mess with the tense in the quote: "Nonetheless, 25 years after the affair, Van Wallach, Wolfgang Wüster, and Donald G. Broadley wrote that "taxonomy remains as vulnerable to acts of nomenclatural vandalism as it was then".
I wasn't especially happy with that sentence's syntax and this is a great fix. Thank you!
Thanks for these notes, Mike Christie! I've incorporated them all; let me know if there are other spaces for improvement! Kindly —Collintc 21:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article: Its publisher, the Sydney-based Australian Herpetologists League, was established to facilitate the journal's production.
Source: Several years ago a group of Sydney herpetologists formed the Australian Herpetologists League for the purpose of starting a periodical called the Australian Journal of Herpetology.
Article: Because of Wells's enrollment at UNE, the Australian Journal of Herpetology was able to use a mailing address at the university.
Source: By the virtue of the enrolment of its Editor, Richard Wells, in 1st year of a B.Sc. at University of New England the periodical was able to use a University address.
Article: The journal gained individual and institutional subscribers in Australia and abroad
Source: Individuals and libraries from Australia and overseas subscribed giving it a financial base.
Article: several professionally printed copies were distributed in Brisbane.
Source: T.J. Hawkeswood distributed several copies of a properly printed version of this MS in Brisbane on behalf of Wells and Wellington. T
Article: The commission wrote that while Wells and Wellington had ignored many of the Code's ethical tenets and while taxonomic arguments against the pair's works were strong, the ICZN did not have the power to rule on the case on those grounds and thus opted not to vote on the case, thereby closing it
Source: The Commission deplores the clear rejection by Wells and Wellington of virtually every tenet of ...
Article: In its case decision, the ICZN noted that the affair highlighted the need to update its Code to account for the effects that desktop publishing was having and would continue to have on the availability of scientific names.
Source: Page 90 (Text)
... growth in the number of journals and bulletins, and the ease of desktop publishing, promise further ...
Page 338 (Text)
... revolution in desktop publishing over the past decade, coupled with the ability to scan cheaply ...
I can very confidently say that I'm approaching this article with fresh eyes, as I know nothing at all about this topic! I'd like to offer the following comments:
Briefly note what 'herpetology' is is when the term is first used.
" Wells took control of the Australian Journal of Herpetology" - if he was the editor from when it was established, how did he 'take control'?
Clarified what happened. —Collintc 02:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The second para in the 'Background' section looks out of place and is partially duplicated by the next para. I'd suggest moving this into the next section, and simplifying the paras. The first para of the 'background' section would likely fit in better at the start of the 'ICZN case 2531' section.
Took a stab at this! Let me know if you like it. —Collintc 02:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who were the members of the Australian Herpetologists League? (were there many, and were they experts, enthusiastic amateurs, etc)
I cannot find this information anywhere unfortunately, including in the first issue of the AJH itself. My guess is that it was Heatwole, Miller, and King, but I have encountered no documentation of who the group's members actually were. Most references to the League pre-W&W affair were simply mentions that it published the journal (which makes sense since the journal was its main aim) but the only name I've found connected to the organization is Wells's (as journal editor). —Collintc 02:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"At the same time, Wells did not complete his first year at UNE" - 'at the same time' is confusing that an entire year is noted here. Did he leave UNE at exactly the same time the journal was established as this suggests, or during the same year?
The exact timeline; changed to "meanwhile". I think that implies that it happened at some point while the journal was gaining subscribers but suggestions for stronger wordings are also welcome. —Collintc 02:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
" Then, without warning" - who would have been warned, and why? Surely something like 'without prior notice' would be better? (but again, who would need to have been notified?)
Changed to "Then, without the board's knowledge". —Collintc 21:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What was/is Australian Biological Services?
Sources are unclear on the exact nature of this also but it appears to be Wells and Wellington's personal entity set up for copyright and payment purposes. Clarified as best I could with available sources in the text. —Collintc 21:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Neither Australian Herpetologist nor the hundreds of papers purportedly published therein were reported as having been available at any major Australian libraries or listed in the Australian Bibliographic Network as of 1985" - has it or they turned up since? I'd guess not given that the National Library of Australia's catalogue doesn't have any entries for a journal of this name.
I've been able to find all of one of the over 500 papers purportedly published in the periodical, and that one was published in 1987 and coauthored by a third author. The AH is not listed in WorldCat so I don't have sources to prove the negative, I feel comfortable sticking with what's in the text: that it was unavailable in 1985 anywhere. —Collintc 22:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The first article also referred to several specimens housed in the "Australian Zoological Museum" which was Wells's private collection" - did the article own up to it being his private collection?
Ooh, good question! The article lists Wells's affiliation as the AZM but does not explicitly state that it is his private collection. —Collintc 22:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did Wells ever complete academic qualifications in this field?
Even in his peer-reviewed papers, I can find no author bios; he's listed at a variety of different addresses over time but never with an institutional affiliation and searching has come up empty. —Collintc 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What were Wellington's qualifications and prior experience? Many high school teachers have strong expertise in their fields - several well regarded Australian historians are high school teachers, for instance.
Unclear! His LinkedIn, which I'm not going to use as a source, lists a Bachelor's degree + some museum experience. I have some better references for things he did more recently but as far as I can tell he's not an expert; in Roberts 1984, he refers to himself and Wells as amateurs. —Collintc 22:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 'Initial reactions' and 'Wells and Wellington's justifications' sections may be in the wrong order - we're given some fairly reactive material about the reason why the articles were published before we learn about why there was a reaction
Sure, gave it a go! I'm gonna need to take another pass to link the first instances of a bunch of terms since many paras have been moved around, but let me know what you think otherwise. —Collintc 22:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
" Grigg gave several specific issues with the Wells and Wellington works" - awkward grammar
Used "described" instead. —Collintc 22:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did Wells and Wellington participate in the ICZN case?
While they participated in others, a search of the BHL indicates that they didn't weigh in on cases in the 1980s, '90s, or at least early '00s. —Collintc 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of the references need specific page numbers. At present WP:V isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure if this is actually a guideline somewhere but afaik, a lot (if not most) of biology/paleontology/medical related articles cite journals without specific page numbers – including featured ones. It seems to be a common practice that this article would supposably fall under, though users in these topic areas should feel free to correct me. Aza24 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coming at this as someone not familiar with this topic area, a reference like the current reference 2 simply isn't helpful. If I wanted to check any of the multiple facts cited to it, I'd need to read through all 11 pages of the paper. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) We usually do not request page numbers for scientific papers.Graham Beards (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm gonna address some of these comments over the next few days. I'm ambivalent on the question of specific pages for references in this case but if folks feel like it'd be useful, I can convert the reference style over to something more akin to this. In any case, if that feels like the best course of action, it'll be the last item in this list I address since it'll take some time to go back and retrieve exact page numbers. Thanks for the comments Nick-D! —Collintc 05:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Getting started on some of these! —Collintc 02:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Nick-D, I've addressed everything except the references point, which I'll work on once you feel that the other points have been adequately resolved. Some things I was able to change or respond to, others simply did not have sources to say one way or the other. Let me know what you think! Kindly —Collintc 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taking a look now....
*It "contained a broad spectrum of conventional herpetology papers from both amateur and professional authors." - I'd rewrte without quotes and paraphrasing.
Hello Collin, thanks for this very fascinating read. I have a few questions and suggestions...
Should this article use Australian spelling and date format? If so, add templates ((Use Australian English|date=October 2020)) and ((Use dmy dates|date=October 2020)) and tweak following:
rigor - rigour
enrollment - enrolment
fulfills - fulfils
honoring - honouring
characterized - characterised
recognized x3 - recognised
fulfills - fulfils (though fulfilled is ok)
favor - favour
released in 1985, dated March 1 - dated 1 March
published dated December 31, 1983 - dated 31 December 1983
plus all dates in refs
also Australian English tends not to use the Oxford comma (except to prevent ambiguity), so you might consider removing it from "the Blue Mountains Gazette, and the Sydney Morning Herald.", and from "and Reptilia of Australia", and "A Synopsis", and from "Cogger, Shea, and others had", and from "Scott Thomson, and Arthur Georges", and from "six snakes, and one turtle", and from "reptiles in Papua New Guinea, and global herpetological", and from "Wolfgang Wüster, and Donald G. Broadley"
Useful, I did not know all of these and would certainly have missed some without your eye on it. I hate to see the Oxford commas go but it is done. All the the above have been updated. —Collintc 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
researchers: Dr. Harold Heatwole, an associate professor at the University of New England (UNE), - maybe add here 'in Armidale, New South Wales
maintained his UNE address despite having moved - despite having left there/Armidale?
→"having left Armidale." —Collintc 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
copyright was now held by the Australian Biological Services, an entity - is "the" needed? Maybe an unknown/unrecognised entity?
It remains unclear exactly what ABS was...it appears to have been an entity of some sort that W&W created and used for copyright and possibly payment purposes, but there's not a lot of useful info in the sources about this. I think an earlier version of this article had it in quotes? In any case, removed the "the". —Collintc 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At first, only spiralbound printouts - maybe spiral-bound printouts, piped to wlink Coil binding?
ref 33 Germaine Greer's book should have caps? ie White Beech: The Rainforest Years?
I was shooting for a consistent caps style for all titles, book and article, essentially following APA guidelines ("First word: And also first word after colon and any proper nouns like Wells or Wellington or Australia"). I did go through and check that all titles were consistent, which they weren't but are now. —Collintc 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh love this category, had no idea it existed. Done. —Collintc 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Collin, sorry if any/all of this is nitpicky. Thank you sincerely for writing it, I had no idea this could happen and am really pleased to have read it. JennyOz (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nah, JennyOz, I love nitpicky comments, this is exactly the kind of feedback I love giving others and it's really nice to receive it myself. Everything is addressed, let me know if there are any other areas you think would benefit from work. Thanks for combing over the article and finding these little inconsistencies and glad you enjoyed it! Kindly —Collintc 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Collin, I am very pleased to support promotion. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Working on trying to promote this and I was reverted for changing the title of a book to title case. Why are we artificially putting the titles of books into sentence case and not title case (and not other types of works)? If you're trying to follow APA guidelines they have a spec for title case. Please clarify this. --Laser brain(talk) 15:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Laser_brain! I'm fine with book titles being title case; let me just swing through and apply it consistently to all referenced books. Thanks! —Collintc 15:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]