Login
Login

Talk:Objections to evolution/GA1

GA Review

:This review is transcluded from Talk:Objections to evolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

:GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
  2. :a (prose):
  3. ::"The ideas gained vast popular audiences" - Unclear, referring to the objections or to the evolutionary ideas?
  4. :::Fixed. - RoyBoy 04:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. ::The quotes of Kitcher are a bit long, perhaps some of these could be summarised?
  6. :b (MoS):
  7. :: Looks OK to me.
  8. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
  9. :a (references):
  10. ::Reference needed for "Although most of Darwin's contemporaries came to accept the transmutation of species based upon fossil evidence"
  11. :::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objections_to_evolution&diff=234281921&oldid=234278789 Fixed]. - RoyBoy 04:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  12. :b (citations to reliable sources):
  13. ::Could be improved by more citations to the scientific literature for factual statements
  14. :c (OR):
  15. ::Could be improved by more attribution of statements, see below.
  16. It is broad in its coverage.
  17. :a (major aspects):
  18. ::The relationship between Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church is lacking, would make a good comparison to the relationship with Protestantism in the history section.
  19. :::Done [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objections_to_evolution&diff=295314052&oldid=295313976 June 8th] 2009. - RoyBoy 18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  20. ::History section also focusses a bit too much on the recent past and continuing controversy, rather than giving a general overview of how the majority of religions have accommodated evolution through the development of theistic evolution.
  21. :b (focused):
  22. ::Yes
  23. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  24. :Fair representation without bias:
  25. ::More of the arguments should be attributed to specific people and sources. eg instead of "It is frequently argued that a great weakness of evolutionary theory is that it does not, or cannot, explain a certain aspect of the natural world." attribute this argument to a prominent advocate - "Creationists such as John Doe and Jean Doe argue that a great weakness of evolutionary theory is that it does not, or cannot, explain a certain aspect of the natural world."
  26. It is stable.
  27. :No edit wars etc.:
  28. ::Yes
  29. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
  30. :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
  31. :: Does not apply
  32. :b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  33. :: Yes
  34. Overall:
  35. :Pass Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)