User:DLH/Featured article review Intelligent design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Intelligent design/archive2

To further the review process, I outlined the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria Featured Article Criteria below. See detail in discussion page.DLH 05:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of cutting this for the talk page of the review. This makes the FAR ToC monstrous. Marskell 10:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Somehow, I sense a pattern in "monstrous" posts. But perhaps it is just me, and I am imagining things. I do not get the impression that these "monstrous" posts do much to further the review process. They do tend to produce evidence for a certain impression of a certain editor and his credibility, however.--Filll 11:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is an example of why there are so many references:[1] This recent diff shows why the references are so copious. Even simple things, like statements about the contents of books of famous authors, are attacked as unreferenced statements. Does one need a reference to the reference to the reference as well? How many scholarly citations are necessary for this? I will note that this is not even remotely central to the topic of the article. If we adopted this standard for all of WP or even all of the FA articles, we would have a lot more citations in our articles and a lot would have to be substantially rewritten.--Filll 15:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
At one point do these requests for changes and citations cross over from reasonableness to unreasonableness, and just harassment? I am sure the DI will continue to push and push at every conceivable potential weakness, because in their eyes, we are doing the work of Satan, and evil beyond belief. We represent a threat to humanity, or worse. So of course, they will attack and attack and attack. Wave after wave. --Filll 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Having read the article recently, I don't see any significant content issues with it (i.e., violations of NPOV, OR, RS etc). However there are a few style issues, especially with citations (for example providing publisher, year of publication etc, and using citation templates will perhaps help editors remember to fill in all the required fields) and the prose can be tightened a bit in some places. I am hopeful that these concerns can be addressed during FA review and will try and help in the process. Abecedare 19:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, see here [2] and here [3] and here [4] and here [5]. •Jim62sch• 20:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the number of citations. Having worked on some mildly controversial articles in the past, I know that someone will add the fact-tag and point to WP:V as soon as you remove a citation. The type of stuff I am referring to [6], which (unfortunately) requires a lot of drudgery. Abecedare 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)