Contents

Talk:Coevolution

Coevolution 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: April 20, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Evolutionary biology High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I don't have the time to review this in detail, but just in passing it seems to me that this book is worth a mention in the "outside biology" section: it has been cited roughly 1500 times, and I have heard of it despite this not being my field. Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've popped it in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that non-evolutionary uses of coevolution should have their own pages or something rather than cluttering up the coevolution page. I would think most people coming to the coevolution page are looking for information about evolution -- not relatively obscure uses of the term in architecture or "management and organization studies". beanstash (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your view; it would be totally apposite if the other uses were indeed "non-evolutionary". But they aren't: they're evolutionary but non-biological. It's entirely reasonable that coevolution in all its forms be described here; and even if a non-biological coevolution page were to be created, it would still have a section heading, descriptive paragraph, and "main" link here, with the same citations as now, and that page would only be feasible if you could find multiple reliable sources that discussed all of it as a topic, as opposed to the sources we have which are, naturally enough, about the individual forms. Best we keep it as it is, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]