6 ms·

I mean, there is only so much you can simplify on some topics, and this is a really specific topic. Making every domain-specific term a hyperlink is about as go

I mean, there is only so much you can simplify on some topics, and this is a really specific topic. Making every domain-specific term a hyperlink is about as good as you can hope to get sometimes.

ansgri 3y ago
This should have some simpler overview though. I actually have some background in morphology of insects and crustaceans, and skimming first screens for a couple of minutes gave me no idea what is it about. Looks like it's about the evolution of arthropod head from segmented worms, with disagreements on what arthropod parts are homologous (evolutionary correspondent) to which parts of segmented worms. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
icegreentea2 3y ago
I don't actually think it's really a jargon problem per-se in this case. I think there's some minor changes that would help a lot. For example, the very first sentence: "The (pan)arthropod head problem[4] is a long-standing zoological dispute concerning the segmental composition of the heads of the various arthropod groups, and how they are evolutionarily related to each other". So even if you understand the jargon more or less, the way this is written makes it feel like "there's a lot more essential detail" that's not covered in this sentence. But once you read the background section, and you get to this sentence "The challenge that the arthropod head problem has to address is to what extent the various structures of the arthropod head can be resolved into a set of hypothetical ancestral segments", you realize that actually the initial summary is actually fairly complete, but just strangely uncommital. Rewriting the first sentence to be more direct might result in: "The arthropod head problem is a zoological dispute over the extent that the various structures of the arthropod head amongst different types of arthropods can be resolved into a set of hypothetical ancestral structures". Or maybe a less aggressive change: "The (pan) arthropod head problem is a zoological dispute over the segments that make up the heads of the various arthropod groups, and how these different segments are evolutionary related to each other". The background section itself could probably be improved by moving the first sentence deeper into the section, and probably doing a paragraph break right before the "The challenge that the arthropod head problem has to address.." sentence to make it easier for skimmers (or glazed out readers) to pick out a significant segment. In fact, maybe the problem with the beginning section is that it's focused on the "meta". Every single sentence contains information about the history and development of "the problem", while only one sentence directly talks about "problem", and like two sentences talk about the scope and some of the tools used to address the problem. Perhaps portions of the "Background" section should be raised to the top level, and the history stuff moved to a history (or even the background...) section. I think it's reasonable for some articles to be pretty jargon dense, but the opening bits should make some accommodations to less specialized audiences.
- brazzy 3y ago
  Bravo. Most people suck so very much at writing clearly and concisely. And that usually has little to do with assuming knowledge in the audience; people who have the requisite knowledge are just better able to penetrate the bad writing, but would still be able to digest a better article much more quickly.
- martinpw 3y ago
  SGTM. How about you make some of those changes to the article? Of course you may end up with possessive authors who revert, but the Edit button is there for a reason :-)
  - lmm 3y ago
    As far as I can tell the reason is to give those possessive authors something to do.
stavros 3y ago
Well, from the comments here, it looks like "there's a lot of debate on which parts of various insects' heads evolved from the same ancestral parts" about covers it.
SoftTalker 3y ago
Encyclopedias are not supposed to be technical references. They are for laypeople to get a general understanding of something. Linking to another domain-specific resource won't really help.

I mean, there is only so much you can simplify on some topics, and this is a really specific topic. Making every domain-specific term a hyperlink is about as good as you can hope to get sometimes.

ansgri 3y ago

This should have some simpler overview though. I actually have some background in morphology of insects and crustaceans, and skimming first screens for a couple of minutes gave me no idea what is it about. Looks like it's about the evolution of arthropod head from segmented worms, with disagreements on what arthropod parts are homologous (evolutionary correspondent) to which parts of segmented worms. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

icegreentea2 3y ago

I don't actually think it's really a jargon problem per-se in this case. I think there's some minor changes that would help a lot. For example, the very first sentence: "The (pan)arthropod head problem[4] is a long-standing zoological dispute concerning the segmental composition of the heads of the various arthropod groups, and how they are evolutionarily related to each other". So even if you understand the jargon more or less, the way this is written makes it feel like "there's a lot more essential detail" that's not covered in this sentence. But once you read the background section, and you get to this sentence "The challenge that the arthropod head problem has to address is to what extent the various structures of the arthropod head can be resolved into a set of hypothetical ancestral segments", you realize that actually the initial summary is actually fairly complete, but just strangely uncommital. Rewriting the first sentence to be more direct might result in: "The arthropod head problem is a zoological dispute over the extent that the various structures of the arthropod head amongst different types of arthropods can be resolved into a set of hypothetical ancestral structures". Or maybe a less aggressive change: "The (pan) arthropod head problem is a zoological dispute over the segments that make up the heads of the various arthropod groups, and how these different segments are evolutionary related to each other". The background section itself could probably be improved by moving the first sentence deeper into the section, and probably doing a paragraph break right before the "The challenge that the arthropod head problem has to address.." sentence to make it easier for skimmers (or glazed out readers) to pick out a significant segment. In fact, maybe the problem with the beginning section is that it's focused on the "meta". Every single sentence contains information about the history and development of "the problem", while only one sentence directly talks about "problem", and like two sentences talk about the scope and some of the tools used to address the problem. Perhaps portions of the "Background" section should be raised to the top level, and the history stuff moved to a history (or even the background...) section. I think it's reasonable for some articles to be pretty jargon dense, but the opening bits should make some accommodations to less specialized audiences.

brazzy 3y ago
Bravo. Most people suck so very much at writing clearly and concisely. And that usually has little to do with assuming knowledge in the audience; people who have the requisite knowledge are just better able to penetrate the bad writing, but would still be able to digest a better article much more quickly.
martinpw 3y ago
SGTM. How about you make some of those changes to the article? Of course you may end up with possessive authors who revert, but the Edit button is there for a reason :-)
- lmm 3y ago
  As far as I can tell the reason is to give those possessive authors something to do.

stavros 3y ago

Well, from the comments here, it looks like "there's a lot of debate on which parts of various insects' heads evolved from the same ancestral parts" about covers it.

SoftTalker 3y ago

Encyclopedias are not supposed to be technical references. They are for laypeople to get a general understanding of something. Linking to another domain-specific resource won't really help.