Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolution/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Evolution
I found this article a few days ago, and it had potential. I've spent a few days polishing it up, and I think it's now ready to be a featured article. →Raul654 04:43, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Object. No references.Johnleemk | Talk 05:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Support.
The article is not complete without a Monkey/Ape to Modern Human morphing picture. Plus what Johnleemk said.Squash 06:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)- (For the consideration of those reading this) - That first sentence (about the morphing picture) is a joke from a discussion we had in IRC and is not meant to be taken seriously. →Raul654 07:27, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- References have now been added. GeneralPatton 08:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't relized that my sentence turned out to be a joke (coincidentally) because I have never been on IRC for like 2 or 3 months due to my "self-exile" and "self-imposed ban" from it. Other then that good job. Squash 20:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. This
looks good. I cannot judge if the contents are all factually correct, though. Jeronimo 08:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great article. GeneralPatton 11:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain. Good article, but whenever I see such a long 'See also' list I get a feeling that this article is far from comprehensive. A feeling is not enough for an objection, so I will just comment on this, read up and possibly change my vote later. As a sidenote, I'd love to see the morphing picture added - not as a joke, but it is perhaps one of the most common symbols of evolution and should be added if possible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Very well written on a potentially contentious topic. A long 'see also' can also come from the editors of the article doing a diligent job of linking to related material that would simply distract from this one by including all of it. I tend to believe that is the case here. - Taxman 14:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I find the article well written and interesting, and im particularly happy at any attempt to promote the theroy of evolution in light of recent shifts in US education allowing for creationism to be thaught in some public schools in the mid-america. CGorman 21:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A good article that overviews the subject very well. Joshuaschroeder 22:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, only because I feel Steven Jay Gould's contribution to a 20th century understanding of evolution needs a little more recognition. A very well written article otherwise. Denni☯ 04:58, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
- Comment - Much of the article seems more like defining certain terms than being part of a unified narrative... Just a comment - I don't want to get into this because it reminds me too much of school (I have a BS in biology but for some reason I really don't like writing about it). --mav 05:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. It seems to me that this article has sufficiently evolved into FAS. ;-) Edeans 06:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support U$er 06:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. 1. The article should include a section summarizing criticism, regardless of how ridiculed it is. 2. There should be a small section on areas of active research / unanswered questions. 3. The recently added section on Roman Catholicism is inappropriate to the article. (What about other denominations and religions?) In the past, when I added a few similar sentences to the article, it was suggested that a more appropriate place is evolutionary creationism. Hence the similar information there. Comment: A small section on simulations of evolution would be nice.--Johnstone 02:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support -Exigentsky
