From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Intelligent design/archive2 2 FA1 Review Criteria 2.1 FA1a Is it well written? 2.2 FA1b Comprehensive? 2.3 FA1c Is it Factually accurate with inline and reference citations? 2.4 FA1d Is it Neutral-Fair & without bias? 2.5 FA1e Is it Stable, w/o edit wars? 3 FA2 Does it comply with style manual, WikiProjects? 3.1 FA2a Has it a concise summary? 3.2 FA2b Has it Hierarchical headings? 3.3 FA2c Has it a substantial table of contents? 3.4 FA2d Has it consistent inline formatting with inline/end citations? 3.5 FA3. Has it images & media? 3.6 FA4. Is the length reasonable and is it focused 3.7 FAR is closed, do not continue to edit here

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

[edit] FA1 Review Criteria

Please Summarize Review/Editorial Issues and Actions in this outline. (NO VOTING List/Delist here) One to two lines per person per criterion please. Leave/place long discussion elsewhere. Put detail in discussion page. DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA1a Is it well written?

• 1. Is it well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable?

• Improve prose. It evidences edit wars. Needs systematic editing, compaction. DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Needs improvement. There are still plenty of weak sentences and the whole is not well organized. --FOo

06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Tighten up prose: (Abecedare)

[edit] FA1b Comprehensive?

• (b) Is it "Comprehensive", not neglecting major facts and details?

• Missing sections: Assumptions, Evolution limits, Predictions, and Discrimination. Science Demarcation needs Stephen Myers major paper.DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• No problem. These matters are covered; they're just not well organized. --FOo 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Missing professional philosophy (rtc)

• Highly US Centric (Eusebeus)
• more work on non-US elements (JoshuaZ)

[edit] FA1c Is it Factually accurate with inline and reference citations?

• Mixed: Major errors needing correcting. See comments moved to discussionDLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Largely accurate. "Major errors" is an exaggeration. --FOo 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Style issues. "style issues, especially with citations (for example providing publisher, year of publication etc,"(Abecedare)
• Cleanup. "external links could probably use a cleanup too with regard to guidelines." (Morphh)

[edit] FA1d Is it Neutral-Fair & without bias?

• Endemic anti-ID bias deleting statements of ID positions: Frequently states critics' but not ID positions. “Owners” rarely allow corrections or improvements. DLH 04:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Content fine; style lacking. The heckling tone, in which every piece of information about what ID people think is immediately rebutted, gives the appearance of a work of debunking, not an encyclopedia article. Featured articles about controversial topics do not adopt this tone. --FOo 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• worst example of how not to hammer out an NPOV compromise (SandyGeorgia)

[edit] FA1e Is it Stable, w/o edit wars?

• Poor: Ongoing edit wars with frequent revisions by “owners”.DLH
• Shouldn't be. This article needs a lot of development still, which is being resisted out of (somewhat justified) fear of biased editors wrecking it. --FOo 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA2 Does it comply with style manual, WikiProjects?

[edit] FA2a Has it a concise summary?

• Imbalanced summary: Lead section fails to summarize major positions. Excessive detail on issues in the lead. DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Does not summarize. Lead does introduce the article but does not summarize the material in it. --FOo 06:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Excessive intro-too many references (Eusebeus)
• Better summarize the article. (Morphh)

[edit] FA2b Has it Hierarchical headings?

• Fair hierarchy: Needs rearranging. Eg Origins, PositionsDLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Very bad. The top-level sections do not seem to be well chosen, nor the second-level sections well-arranged within them. --FOo 06:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA2c Has it a substantial table of contents?

• Fix Peer Review: This needs to be moved up one level. Separate out Scientific Research.DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• No (independent) problem. The TOC is just an index of the sections. --FOo 06:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA2d Has it consistent inline formatting with inline/end citations?

• References need compaction, improvementDLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Excessive in lead; otherwise fine. --FOo 06:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• external link farm, and incorrectly formatted citations. (SandyGeorgia)

[edit] FA3. Has it images & media?

• Prefer more images: Sundial helps. Add Behe's mousetrap, flagella, Dembski's filter. DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Unnecessary. Images as suggested are not appropriate to the subject; they are mere icons. --FOo 06:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA4. Is the length reasonable and is it focused

• Excessively long: "Redundant repetition" should be compacted. Summarize longer sections & move to their own page.DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Length due to verbosity. Tightening up the prose would fix the length. No detail needs to be trimmed. --FOo 06:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR is closed, do not continue to edit here

This FAR was closed. Please to do not to continue to edit this page, it is supposed to be an archived page of discussion relevant to the now closed FAR. If you want to continue on with this discussion DLH, use your user talk page or create a subpage in your userspace. FeloniousMonk 06:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)