Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Dawkins/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

[edit] Richard Dawkins

previous FAC (19:48, 21 March 2008)


Self-nominator I am nominating this article for the FA status because I believe this article meets all the FA criteria. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment
  • "Born in Nairobi, Kenya, Dawkins moved to England with his parents at the age of eight, and completed his education at the University of Oxford." - <Sniff> I wish was so smart that I could have graduated when I was eight years old.
  • Is that last paragraph of the lead necessary? Seems like a tacky add-on, and the stuff isn't there anywhere else in the article.
  • Club the Education sub-section to either the one above it or below it.
  • I find it weird that the lead introduces his theories based on the pop-sci books he had written them in. Aren't those books peripheral to his work as a scientist and researcher. Its odd that you go discuss the career and work of a scientist on the basis of the pop-sci books he had written.
More later, indopug (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's very odd to introduce his work through his books; he is first-and-foremost a populariser and public intellectual as opposed to a field-researcher, and his been since his first publication's massive success. For example, the gene-centered view of evolution to which the article alludes was not his own original idea (in fact, it was George C. Williams's), and yet it is what he is best known for scientifically, as his popular-science book The Selfish Gene caused the idea to be accepted almost universally. AC+79 3888 (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Dawkins is much more significant and influential as a popularizer than as a researcher. Where he has had innovations, they have primarily been innovative ways of looking at phenomena, rather than new biology discoveries. It is entirely relevant to focus on Dawkins' most well-known contributions even if a majority of those are "pop-sci", since popular culture is very much within the scope of a general-knoweldge encyclopedia like Wikipedia. -Silence (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok, thanks for clarifying. indopug (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 14, "The Atheism Tapes" is lacking publisher information. I see you give the WikiSource information on it, but the information given on them doesn't tell me how Wikisource got them?
I guess the real concern now is that is Wikisource a RS? we don't use Wikipedia as a source...
Reply Changed to a reliable source (The Guardian). See article. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You've mixed using the [[:Template:Citation]] with the templates that start with Cite such as [[:Template:Cite journal]] or [[:Template:Cite news]]. They shouldn't be mixed per [[WP:CITE#Citation templates]].
still doing so.
Reply I'm working on this one now. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply Could we maybe have someone decide once and for all whether or not this link should be included? I have no problem removing it, but I simply don't feel that it should be removed; unless the consensus says otherwise. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
did you remove this?
Reply Changed to a reliable source (RichardDawkins.net video). See article.
did you remove this?
Reply Yes, that citation has been removed. The text was altered to exclude the claim which was being sourced. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
All links checked out as good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
"http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php is a blog, what makes it notable enough to use?" Well, it is considered notable enough to merit its own article, according to which, it was listed by the journal Nature as one of the best in scientific circles. It is award-winning, and highly popular. Also, yes, Free Inquiry is the CSH's magazine. Ambiguity with "official site" resolved. AC+79 3888 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Having its own article reflects notability, not WP:V; specifically, we need to know how PZ Myers meets WP:SELFPUB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The text simply states that "in the paperback edition of The God Delusion, he [Dawkins] refers to the American biologist PZ Myers, who has satirized this line of argument as 'The Courtier's Reply' ". By clicking the link provided, one can view the article written by Myers in which he satirizes this exact line of argument. Myers is not being used as a source regarding the claims of critics of Dawkins' book, he is merely being singled out as a person who has satirized those arguments; accurately or otherwise, and has done so on a notable medium, namely the Pharyngula blog. Something which was picked up on by Dawkins himself, who specifically mentions it in his introduction to the paperback edition.--AC+79 3888 (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving this one out for others to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Beliefnet is owned and operated by Fox Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of News Corporation. I think it is safe to say that it is a reliable source.--AC+79 3888 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, please take a look at the remaining items on the list when you get a chance, I think that they have been addressed. Thanks, AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Support I feel that the article is very nicely laid out, well sourced, and objectively written. I can find little or no faults which are of any significance. It has come along remarkably since its last nomination; at which point it was certainly not ready to be approved. AC+79 3888 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • ObjectComment
  1. "playing a significant role in the foundation of memetics as a scientific field of study" - Is memetics a scientific field of study?
  2. "In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy" - We shouldn't expect all our readers to be familiar with the watchmaker analogy (or the teleological argument in general), and ones who aren't familiar with it won't understand its significance to the previous sentence about Dawkins' "views on religion". It's a minor issue, but one easily remedied if Paley's analogy was noted as an argument for the existence of God. This seems to me to be more useful in the lead than the bit "described evolutionary processes as being analogous to a blind watchmaker", which a vast majority of readers will either not understand (those who aren't familiar with the watchmaker analogy) or will already know about anyway (those familiar with The Blind Watchmaker).
  3. "several best-selling popular books" - As opposed to a best-selling unpopular book? Like what, Mein Kampf? Is this meant to say "popular science books"?
  4. "and supporter of the Brights movement." - Is this crucial enough for the lead section? It doesn't seem to add much information necessary to understand Dawkins himself (to the extent that it's significant at all, it only reiterates the rest of the sentence: that Dawkins is a freethinker, skeptic, etc.), and there are surely more influential and well-known organizations that Dawkins supports.
  5. "creationism and intelligent design" - This phrasing is used twice in the lead section. Is it the opinion of the Richard Dawkins article, or of Wikipedia generally, that intelligent design is not (a subtype of) creationism?
  6. "the English-language version had sold more than 1.5 million copies and had been translated into 31 languages" - The English-language version had been translated into 31 languages? Assuming there are 32 total languages The God Delusion has been written in, what other version could have been translated? It's just a very strange way to put it: at the very least, what about "31 other languages" for clarity?
  7. I agree with an above comment that the "Darwin's rottweiler" paragraph seems strangely tacked-on and out-of-place in the lead section; it doesn't really add any vital information. If it's meant to convey the notion that Dawkins is often seen as a particularly vociferous or fierce advocate of evolutionary theory, then it does so too coyly and with too much of a historical bent.
  8. "Richard Dawkins was born on March 26, 1941, in Nairobi, Kenya, and named Clinton Richard Dawkins." - So was it Richard Dawkins who was born, or was it Clinton Richard Dawkins? Very strange sequencing here. The more conventional approach would be "Richard Dawkins, born Clinton Richard Dawkins..." or the like.
  9. "When he better understood evolution, at age 16," - What made him better understand it? Did he misunderstand it earlier in his life? This section is too general in general.
  10. "his religious position again changed because he felt that evolution could account for the complexity of life in purely material terms, and thus a designer was not necessary." - "and thus a designer was not necessary" makes it sound like Wikipedia is affirming the lack of necessity for such an entity. ", rendering a supernatural designer unnecessary" or the like would avoid this trap.
  11. "there was a lot of unrest and demonstration" - "a lot of" is colloquial. "significant" or "substantial" or the like is more professional, though being more concrete and specific is, as always, preferable.
  12. "Dawkins got heavily involved in all of that." - Is this line a joke? The intense vagueness and casualness make it seem like satire.
  13. "As an ethologist, interested in animal behaviour and its relation to natural selection, he advocates the idea that the gene is the principal unit of selection in evolution" - Does this mean that all ethologists subscribe to the gene-centered view of evolution?
  14. "This has spawned the field of memetics" - Again, is memetics truly a full-fledged "field", or merely a method?
  15. "Dawkins used the term" - Which term, meme or memetics?
  16. "resulting in new memes, which may themselves prove more (or less) efficient replicators than their predecessors" - If new memes can be either more efficient or less efficient replicators than their predecessors, then why is the "more" aspect given more prominence (by relegating "less" to a parenthetical note)—indeed, for that matter, why bring up replicative efficiency at all if that's the case?
  17. "In 2003, he signed Humanism and Its Aspirations published by the American Humanist Association." - Confusing grammar. Is a comma missing?
  18. "According to Dawkins, faith, being belief that is not based on evidence, is one of the world's great evils and is thus analogous to the smallpox virus, though more difficult to eradicate." - Awkward and not particularly enlightening or useful. Doesn't explain why something being "belief that is not based on evidence" is therefore "one of the world's great evils", why being one of the world's great evils makes something specifically analogous to smallpox (as opposed to, say, malaria, war, or starvation), and the "though more difficult to eradicate" seems tacked-on and snarky. (And snarkiness should only be tolerated in quotes.) Surely there are better ways to summarize the substance of Dawkins' article.
  19. "Dawkins argues that being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about" - A pun? One should avoid alternate uses of the term "apologetic" in theological discussions. This wording is also rather awkward (a poor attempt at formalizing the colloquial "nothing to be sorry about"). A better word here than "apologetic" is "ashamed" (following "nothing one should be", not "nothing to be"), though a complete rewrite of this sentence may be warranted instead.
  20. "standing tall to face the far horizon," - Unacceptably poetic language for a non-quoted encyclopedia passage.
  21. "for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind." - Unacceptable overgeneralization and bias for a non-quoted encyclopedia passage. Atheism, as atheists themselves often define it, never indicates either "a healthy indepence of mind" or "a healthy mind" (the implication being that the religious mind is not only delusional, but diseased?)
  22. "establishing positive public connotations with" - connotations "for"?
  23. "Dawkins notes that feminists have succeeded in making us feel embarrassed" - "Us"? Which "us"? The article's editors? All known sentient beings? A majority of 21st-century upper-middle-class English-speakers? Academia?
  24. "when we routinely employ "he" instead of "she"" - "We"? Which "we"?
  25. The way the discussion of "religious children" follows, rather than precedes, the argumentation and context Dawkins uses to support his view, makes Wikipedia seem like it is advocating that view rather than merely providing information on it. This is also suggested by the way the view seems like a tacked-on non-sequitur in context: one might assume, before reading the last couple of sentences, that they would be about "the fight against certain stereotypes", rather than about group identification and labeling.
  26. "The Root of All Evil?, (a title in which Dawkins had no say and with which he has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction)" - Comma goes after the parentheses. Also, Dawkins had no say whatsoever, or he was just overruled? Also, it should be obvious to any neutral reader that this parenthetical digression seems exceedingly tacked-on and argumentative; it comes across as a polemical attempt to preempt a possible criticism, rather than as a neutral encyclopedic report on the facts. How significant is the title and the story surrounding that title to the Richard Dawkins article? And even if it is important to know that he disliked the title, couldn't we find a better way to explain that than with unprofessional and hasty-looking parentheses?
  27. The sentence about McGrath and Harries' segments seems out-of-sequence and awkward in its current context. Are McGrath and Harries meant to be examples of "religious moderates"? And why is this sentence not in the same paragraph as the one actually discussing McGrath?
  28. The way most of this section is presented suggests significant bias. For example, note the use of the pejorative/dismissive verb "claims" for McGrath's comment and for critics of Dawkins generally, whereas Dawkins' comments are characterized by humbly well-informed verbs like "notes", "suggests", or "avers". When Wikipedia uses wording like "Dawkins also criticised McGrath for providing no argument to support his own beliefs", it is essentially agreeing with the substance of Dawkins' criticism (in that case, that McGrath had no argument for his beliefs); whereas the bias is more subtle in other ways, such as in that Dawkins' critics are usually heavily paraphrased, whereas Dawkins' rebuttals and arguments are frequently quoted in part or full.
  29. "Another Christian philosopher, Keith Ward, explores similar themes in his 2006 book Is Religion Dangerous?, arguing against the view of Dawkins and others that religion is socially dangerous. Criticism of The God Delusion has also come" - Is Is Religious Dangerous? a criticism of The God Delusion, or just of certain ideas which happen to have appeared in The God Delusion?
  30. "and have asserted that global conflict would continue without religion" - Has Dawkins said otherwise?
  31. "Dawkins' defenders, however, claim that the critics misunderstand his real point" - All of his defenders claim that all of his critics misunderstand his "real" point?
  32. "David Nicholls (writer)," - Set "writer" off in commas if anything, not parentheses.
  33. "Dawkins does not contend that religion is the source of all that is wrong in the world" - Again, do any of Dawkins' high-profile critics (much less all of his critics) actually accuse Dawkins of blaming religion for "all that is wrong in the world"? One can believe that Dawkins is overstating the dangers of religion, for example, without believing that Dawkins attributes "all that is wrong in the world" to religion. We shouldn't let words be put either in Dawkins' mouth or in the mouths of his critics without extreme care, lest that be the only word said on the subject to our readers.
  34. "Rather, that it is an "unnecessary part of what is wrong"." - Not a sentence.
  35. "Dawkins himself has said that his objection to religion is not solely that it causes wars and violence, but also that it gives people an excuse to hold beliefs that are not based upon evidence." - Why is this phrased as a rebuttal to a criticism? Who claimed that Dawkins doesn't object to religion's use of faith to justify evidence-lacking beliefs?
  36. "According to Dawkins, however, natural selection--an unconscious, automatic, blind, yet essentially non-random process--has no purpose in mind and, if it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is that of the blind watchmaker." - Malformed emdashes. Strange way of providing Dawkins' response. The crux of Dawkins' argument isn't "natural selection is blind", it's "natural selection is a sufficient 'watchmaker'"; a wording like "According to Dawkins, however, natural selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and nonrandom complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, nonintelligent, "blind" watchmaker." is clearer.
  37. "Dawkins suggested that the deep space, the billions of years of life's evolution, and the microscopic workings of biology and heredity contain more beauty and wonder than myths and pseudoscience." - Those things contain more beauty and wonder than they contain myths and pseudoscience, or those things contain more beauty and wonder than myths and pseudoscience do? (Also, the use of "myths and pseudoscience" here, outside of specific context or quotations, is suggestive of polemic. Encyclopedias should avoid the pejorative use of "myth" to avoid confusion with the neutral use of "myth" in history and sociology.)
-Silence (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. Yes, it is. See The peer-reviewed scientific journal dedicated to the field.
  2. I'm sorry, but isn't this why there is an internal link to the watchmaker analogy page provided, so that people can look it up? If the article was to explain everything, it would be ridiculously long. For example, in the Creationism section, there is a reference to "the use of the word theory" in describing evolution; which serves as a wikilink to the page Evolution as theory and fact. If you're going to pick on the watchmaker analogy, why not this?
  3. You are right. Removed the word "popular".
  4. Well, none that I'm aware of anyway, and I am opposed to removing the reference. Fair enough.
  5. Intelligent design has a separate Wikipedia entry to that on Creationism. It may well be a sub-branch, but clearly Wikipedia regards them as sufficiently distinct.
  6. Added "other".
  7. You don't agree with an above comment, actually, because the text to which they were referring has since been removed. Nonetheless, I would disagree, I think that what's there is relevant to an understanding of Dawkins' overall public persona.
  8. Agreed, sentence edited.
  9. Dawkins himself is the one who singles out 16; however, I have edited to text.
  10. Agree, edited.
  11. Agree, edited.
  12. Agree, edited.
  13. No, I don't see any ambiguity there. He is looking at the situation from the perspective of an ethologist.
  14. Again, yes it is. See above.
  15. Fixed ambiguity.
  16. Why bring up replicative efficiency? Because it is absolutely fundamental to an understanding of memetic "evolution", as in genetic evolution. I have edited the text to remove the parenthesis to which you objected.
  17. There certainly was, yes.
  18. Agree, edited.
  19. Agree, edited.
  20. Said text was a quote. Quotation marks inserted.
  21. Said text was a quote. Quotation marks inserted and surrounding text edited.
  22. No, connotations with. As the Wikipedia article it denotes assocation with sth. I'm not quite sure why you would think "for" a suitable term here.
  23. Agree, edited.
  24. Agree, edited.
  25. I'm sorry, could you specify which segment you are referring to? I cannot seem to find it.
  26. Quite right, duly edited.
  27. However, the text on McGrath is in that paragraph specifically because he partook a rather lengthy interview with Dawkins for that particular documentary.
  28. I changed "Alister McGrath claims" to "Alister McGrath maintains", which I think is a more balanced way of putting it. I don't think it's a wholly accurate point, though; the texts states that "Margaret Somerville suggested that Dawkins overstates the case against religion...", and later "Dawkins' defenders, however, claim that..."
  29. It was not a specific rebuttal of TGD, and so I have removed the word "also".
  30. Changed to "Dawkins 'overstates the case against religion', particularly its role in human conflict..."
  31. Changed to "Many of Dawkins' defenders, however, claim that critics generally..."
  32. Changed to "David Nicholls, writer and president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia,..."
  33. Changed to "reiterated Dawkins' sentiments that religion is an "unnecessary" aspect of global problems", with sole quotation of the word "unnecessary", and no mention of "only part".
  34. Covered above.
  35. Changed wording to "Dawkins has stated that his opposition to religion is twofold, claiming it to be both a source of conflict and a justification for belief without evidence", and moved said sentence up the paragraph in order to align it with the rest of his criticisms.
  36. Issue resolved using your suggestion.
  37. "myths" and "pseudoscience" are quotations; added quotation marks. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Yet our memetics article itself never once describes memetics as a "field" (except in one of the references), much less as a "scientific field of study". I worry that, even if it is technically correct to describe memetics as a "field", using such lofty language for an undeniably fringe (and controversial) approach to sociology, aside from the issue of whether it would mislead readers into thinking that memetics has dozens of peer-reviewed publications rather than just one largely-defunct Internet-based one, comes across as advocacy, as an attempt to legitimize something by defining it as a "scientific field of study", rather than using more specific and meaningful descriptions like "a model of cultural information transfer" (what our memetics article uses).
2. Wikipedia articles are meant to be self-sufficient and self-contained, at least do a degree: wikilinks serve the function of allowing interested readers to get further information on related topics; they do not serve the function of being necessary for readers to explore in order to even understand what this article is, in broad strokes, talking about. Depending on wikilinks to provide such basic information on the subject matter at hand raises lots of potential problems, including complications with making print versions of the article. It would be fine if the watchmaker analogy were only being mentioned briefly, but the length of time spent on that subject in the lead section merits at least a brief acknowledgment of what the analogy is: an argument for the existence of God (of the teleological variety). This is of more value to uninformed readers (our primary audience) than an explanation of what exactly is meant by "The Blind Watchmaker" that presupposes an understanding of the watchmaker analogy. We must always be very careful not to write for an "in-crowd" of people well-acquainted with the primary arguments for and against God, just as we must be careful not to write solely for evolutionary biologists.
5. "Intelligent design has a separate Wikipedia entry to that on Creationism" - I didn't say that they weren't distinct, only that it is misleading to phrase them as separate entities "creationism and intelligent design" when one is a subtype of the other ("creationism, including intelligent design"). We have separate articles for science and evolutionary biology; does that make it right to use constructions like "Richard Dawkins has made many contributions to science and to evolutionary biology"? In both cases, the implication is that ID is not creationism, or in my example that evolutionary biology is not science.
7. Then perhaps the sentence should be expanded, if anything, to include quotation(s) more specifically attesting to what that persona is. That, at least, would make the intended value of the paragraph explicit rather than implicit; encyclopedias should avoid implying whatever they can state outright. If it's sufficiently important and necessary to understand Dawkins' public persona that the lead needs an entire paragraph on it, then we should take the time to explicitly identify how that persona is perceived, rather than falling back on using cute nicknames and metaphors. If, on the other hand, his persona isn't crucial enough that we need to actually explain it to readers that early on the article, then the "Darwin's rottweiler" sentence should equally be moved. The halfway point we're in now just seems peculiar.
13. I realized that was the intended meaning, but there is clear ambiguity: "As an ethologist" can either mean "In his role as an ethologist" or "Because he was an ethologist"; if anything, I'd suggest that the latter meaning is more likely to be people's initial interpretations. This is very easy to fix. In fact, I don't even see a logical connection between the fact that he's an ethologist and his gene-centered view advocacy; these could just as easily be two separate sentences.
15. OK, but were those parentheses inaccurate? I brought up the issue mainly because I was concerned about whether we're misrepresenting memetics: are new memes necessarily more "reproductively" successful than their predecessors? Do memeticians disagree on this issue? Is our assertion here backed up by a source?
22. The line is "Bright as a way of establishing positive public connotations with those who possess a naturalistic worldview." Using "with" here is ambiguous, because it could be read as meaning that people who possess a naturalistic worldview will start associating positive connotations with the public, or any of a number of other meanings. "With" has a variety of uses, whereas "for" is relatively clear and specific: these connotations are being established for those who possess a naturalistic worldview, both in the sense that it benefits them and in the sense that they answer the question of "For whom does the word Bright establish a positive connotation in the mind of the public?" If you want to use "with", change the sentence around a bit, e.g., by changing "establishing" to "associating".
24.? I'm likewise not sure which segment you're referring to, your numbering system seems to have developed an inconsistency after #14.
25.? Right, I've seen the interview several times. But is the article intending to put forth McGrath as an example of a religious moderate Dawkins interviewed?
I'll try to strikethrough my objections later today, when I have time to reread through the article more. Thanks for the responsiveness! -Silence (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Resolved, I think. It now reads "introduced the concept of a meme".
2. I have added detail explaining concisely the blind watchmaker analogy.
5. The ID movement claim not to be creationists on the grounds that they do not specify the Genesis story of creation; rather, they claim that life if sufficiently complex to merit some form of "intelligence", whatever that may be, playing a role in its origins. They claim that they have come to this conclusion via the scientific method, as opposed to Biblical literature. Now it is my opinion, and clearly yours, that they are in fact creationists merely attempting to gain some respectability. However, can Wikipedia really make a judgement on the matter?
7. It's been incorporated into the preceding paragraph.
13. Changed to "In his role as an ethologist..."
15. It is absolutely inherent in the very concept of memetics that, as with genes, those memes (hence the name) arising which are more successful replicators will become plentiful. That - if you like - is what memetics is! See Memetics.
22. Point taken, changed to "associating" as suggested.
25. Sorry about that, I mean point 25 (not 24), about "religious children".
26. I understand where you're coming from, but where do you suggest moving said sentence to, or do you think it should be removed altogether? AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have removed "playing a significant role in the foundation of memetics as a scientific field of study." It is sufficient to mention that Dawkins introduced the term meme. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I have to admit that I liked what I saw when I first glanced through it. His first book was very controversial, and I wonder if we have dug into that enough here? Also, there were a lot of rumors about how he obtained his chaired position. Were those explored fully?--Filll (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, rumours? AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • University of Oxford is hopelessly overlinked in the article.
  • "not attended to Dawkins, thinking it unnecessary to "break a butterfly upon a wheel" -- something's wrong. the first quote doesn't end, and quotes within quotes are in 'single quotes'.
  • "Dawkins coined the term meme..." para has no ref.
  • "He was a featured speaker at the November 2006 Beyond Belief conference." So?
  • In his 1991 essay Viruses of the Mind -- essays in quotes not italics.
  • and religion is incompatible with science-- add a "that" before religion
  • "[89][90][14][91][92][93]" and "[94][95][96]"-- yuck, why do you need so many? For the first statement. place a ref after every comma, and for the second, that's hardly controversial--after all, it is him speaking about his own work--so why 3 refs? More later, indopug (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the University of Oxford is hopelessly overlinked in the article. In every section there is one wikilink to the University of Oxford. That's fine.
  • Once in the lead, once in the body and once in the infobox; apart from these, no need.
  • Dawkins did coined the term meme. See the section "Meme". You will find references in that section.
  • That's the very paragraph I'm talking about; and its paragraph is completely unreferenced. Wikipedia FAs try to have on cite per paragraph at the least. That paragraph has too few wikilinks too.
  • Dawkins was a featured speaker at the November 2006 Beyond Belief conference. That's a fact. What's the problem?
  • Well, I don't know what Beyond Belief is, so I don't understand what that sentence has to do with anything else in that paragraph. Its rather abrupt and disjoint with the rest of the section.
  • essays in quotes not italics? What do you mean by that?
"Viruses of the Mind" not Viruses of the Mind.
  • Added "that".
  • The three refs provides information. I don't think there is a problem. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So many refs in a row hampers readability; and what you are referencing (the "probably the culmination" sentence) is not likely to be challenged because it is Dawkins talking about his own work; just one ref, the source of the quotation is enough. As to your response, how does adding cites increase information? Citations are meant to verify stuff in the article, not to point to handy links where the subject is discussed in more detail/depth. indopug (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I can answer one of your questions. He means that, according to the conventions of bibliographic citation, the title of an essay is placed between quotation marks and not italicized; see WP:CITE. Also, there in no need to link Oxford once per section. Finell (Talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Finell! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
"Viruses of the Mind" now in inverted commas. Removed unnecessary references for the "probably the culmination" comment. Removed the sentence about Beyond Belief; he has spoken at countless such events and I agree with Indopug that there's nothing special about that particular one. Removed the excess wikilinks to University of Oxford; it is now just linked three times as suggested. Added two citations to the opening paragraph of memetics. That everything? AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 22:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
...also resolved the issue with "break a butterfly upon a wheel" quote. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 22:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Well, I think this article should be promoted to the FA status. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope those who raised issues can respond because I think that all or almost all of them have now been addressed, and if there is anything left, I would like to know. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 17:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: primarily due to two sections—Education and academic career and Publications—I believe have been overlooked in favour of building up stuff on his body of work, theories and beliefs.
Education and academic career
This section is really short, and quite superficial in its content. For example,

Dawkins has delivered a number of inaugural and other notable lectures, including the Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture (1989), first Erasmus Darwin Memorial Lecture (1990), Michael Faraday Lecture (1991), T.H. Huxley Memorial Lecture (1992), Irvine Memorial Lecture (1997), Sheldon Doyle Lecture (1999), Tinbergen Lecture (2004), and Tanner Lectures (2003).

Honestly, I don't think anybody would read a big list of names like this, and would just the skip the paragraph. All the useful information in that para can be condensed to "Dawkins has delivered a number of inaugural and other notable lectures" and add a note that names all the lectures.
The section simply contains too little information overall. Here is a man with a forty year academic career, and all Wikipedia can offer is a few disjointed sentences. Below "Since 1970, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford.", the section becomes a bunch of short stubby paragraphs that go, "he was judge on this, an editor on that and was on this panel." This would be a good place to describe chronologically the work he's done as a researcher (although he's not famous for that). Also, include what kind of work did he do in his various capacities and at Oxford. I reckon all his work (except his theories and beliefs in his books which are detailed later). Also, try to club ideas to form bigger paragraphs, they are much nicer than short stubby paragraphs.
Reply All his work except his theories? You point to the Education and Academic Career section being short, when in fact the section on Evolutionary Biology is essentially a continuation of this (Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist after all!). Any significant scientific contribution (primarily those of the gene-centred view of evolution and of the "extended" phenotype) are treated in detail here. Indpug, you already accepted that Dawkins has been a populariser first-and-foremost. He has not made any revolutionary scientific discoveries. What is it precisely that you expect to be added? Or are you merely assuming that he has done other notable work at Oxford? If not, please explain. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Publications This section is a mess, plain and simple; it is very ugly and difficult to read. A table for his books seems a little unnecessary, esp. the ISBN for the audio versions, release years of second and thrid editions etc; just list the books out. External should only be in the external links sections and "See also: Papers and commentary by Richard Dawkins (no longer maintained) and Dawkins' Huffington Post articles." feels like something I would find on a Geocities fansite. Please list the documentaries in a single column, it looks awful the way it is now. Essays should be in "quotes", like I said previously. "Debates on evolutionary theory between Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould." reads oddly. "See also: List of books by and about Richard Dawkins and Richard Dawkins Bibliography at the Richard Dawkins University of Oxford website." should be in the External links section (which BTW could be cleaned up a little bit). If needed a separate List of works by Richard Dawkins article could be created.
Reply I've removed the "see also..." sentence. I've fixed the "debates on evolutionary theory..." sentence. Indeed you have pointed out the issue with essay nomeclature, but to which essays are you referring in this instance? I cannot find a single essay title in this section. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Other issues:
  • Need convincing how Image:The Selfish Gene3.jpg satisfies Non-free image use criteria #8, namely how does a picture of the book's cover significantly aid understanding of the Richard Dawkins article? AFAIK, if you are using the cover of a book, the article must discuss the cover too. (Of course this is not true for the article on the book itself, where the book cover pic is needed for identification purposes).
  • Image:Richard Dawkins Foundation Logo.png--ditto. How does its logo significantly increase understanding of the article?
  • The references need to be formatted. Newspaper articles titles should be in quotes. Publishers such as newspapers and books need to be italicised and linked the first instance of their occurrence (Note: don't link, capitalise and italicise the word "Magazine", keep it alongside the magazine name). For instance, "Discover magazine" should be "Discover magazine".
indopug (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have just started reading the article ( this version) and will add to my comments, questions and suggestions below as I go along.
1. FRLS should perhaps be added to the first sentence and infobox
2. Should the "Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science" be in italics ? Check if MOS has a view
3. I think, The Blind Watchmaker is more relevant to anti-IDism and The God Delusion to atheism, and the associations in the third and fourth paragraphs of the lede can be switched; and the material reorganized in some other way to reduce the redundancy in the these paragraphs.
4. I agree with some of the above comments, that the "Darwin's rottweiler" is an an unimportant detail, and requires too much of an historical digression to be included in the lede.
5. Similarly reference to the "watchmaker's analogy" may to be unwarranted. It may be better to define the main ideas of the book, without necessarily justifying or explaining the title in the lede. IMO, someone who has not read the book, will not understand the significance of the watchmaker being blind.
5. "He first came to prominence ..." - "first" is redundant.
6. The sentences, "In 1982 ... organisms." and "In his 1986 book ... blind watchmaker.", while grammatically correct are very hard to parse on first reading - and perhaps should be reworded. Have you analysed the article for readability ?
7. Over-wikilinking in the lede: examples, atheism (twice), evolutionary biologist (twice) , evolution (twice); does religion require wikilinking even once in the lede ? Please check for wikilinking throughout the article.
8. Multiple references for the same statement can be combined into a single footnote for improved readability.
9. The sale information for God delusion seems to be and example of recentism; after all the numbers are not dramatically different from, say, the Selfish Gene, which (arguably) is a more notable work.
10. To me the in the infobox looks tacky, but that may be a personal preference.
11. Has he had only 2 doctoral students ?
Reply: This is a non-issue. According to Template:Infobox Scientist, the names of any notable doctoral students should be provided. Not all doctoral students. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 08:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
12. "...the Dawkins name was described in Burke's Landed Gentry as "Dawkins of Over Norton". Would be a good idea to give some idea of the year/century. Also, isn't this just a reflection on Dawkin's father's family, rather than his parents' ?
13. The first paragraph of "Education and academic career" is very list-y. The prose and flow can be improved by some minor rephrasings; example, "... graduating in 1962. From 1962 to 1966, he was a research student at the University of Oxford. He received his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966." can be rewritten as "... graduating in 1962. He was a research student at the University of Oxford for the next four years and received his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966." Also it is not clear from the text that Tinbergen was his thesis adviser (as claimed in the infobox), which is much more important than being a tutor during the undergraduate days or even the research adviser from 1965-67.
14. "From 1967 to 1969, ... involved in such activities." Again the writing and flow can be improved and made less stilted. Example, "From 1967 to 1969, ... University of California, Berkeley. This was a period of great unrest in America due to the ongoing Vietnam war. Sentiments among the students and faculty at Berkeley were largely opposed to the war and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and activities". Try to make the prose more engaging as per criterion 1(a). The whole education section, currently appears to be a paraphrasing of his CV. Even if that is unavoidable, it can be a better paraphrasing.
15. The personal life section talks about Dawkin's marriages (when did he divorce Juliet Emma Dawkins, by the way ?), but inexplicably the last sentence of the section is, "In April 2008, it was announced that Dawkins will appear as a guest star in the fourth series of the revived Doctor Who.[23]" Huh ?
16. "The gene-centred view also provides a basis for understanding altruism. ... future reciprocation." It is not clear how this is related directly to Dawkins the person since as of present the article does not say that Dawkins proposed/advocated/popularized or even supported this view.
17. "Critics of Dawkins' ...in a population. In The Selfish Gene, ... appreciable frequency"." It is not clear how the second sentence answers, or is even related to , the first. The last two sentences of the paragraph seem to be related to this idea, but there are two intermediate sentences, which seem independent. Please check. Also note the repeated wikilinking of gene.
18. The last paragraph of the "Evolutionary biology" section has good content, but the sentences need rearranging to make the presentation cogent.
19. "He hypothesised that people could view many ..." Isn't "He posited ..." more accurate ? The explanation of the concept of meme could use a rewrite to be accessible to a general reader.
20. "... he has largely left the task of expanding upon it ..." Wow! That sounds presumptuous.
21. The lengthy last paragraph on the origins of the term meme seem undue to me for this article. The discussion rightly belongs to meme, and here a single sentence summary may be sufficient.
22. "Dawkins is a prominent critic of creationism, ..." Give a brief inline definition of the term "creationism"
23. Add some descriptors for John Maynard Smith and A. E. Wilder-Smith, just as you describe Edgar Andrews as the president of the Biblical Creation Society.
24. "Although, on the advice of his ..." -> "However, on the advice of his ..."
25. Is the Moyer interview the most eloquent explanation of evidence of evolution in Dawkin's writings/interviews ? I am somewhat sceptical, although I don't have a specific alternative in mind.
26. "and he plans—though the Richard Dawkins Foundation" -> "and he plans—through the Richard Dawkins Foundation
27. Should the second section "Work" be renamed "Work and views" or something else, since "Creationism" is certainly not a "work" of/by Dawkins! Alternatively would it be possible to break apart his scientific research and advocacy works, or have some alternate organizational structure for the article sections/sub-sections ?
More later. Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I recall an article who while positive to Wikipedia chided it for trivia. We are still not free of it. Does "Dawkins has widely been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler",[6][7] by analogy with T. H. Huxley, who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog"" belong in lead? I think not. Further, the lead needs to be rewritten to for more logical structure (merge the last two paras); the watchmaker discussion seems to detailed (does it really deserve three lines of lead? I think not).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: Yes, that sentence definitely belongs in the lead. It is both colorful and apt, and places Dawkins's role as an outspoken advocate in historical context. The metaphor "Darwin's Rottweiler" accurately describes Dawkins both for those who support and who oppose his views. Further, this sentence does not fit the definition WP:TRIVIA. (NOTE: I neither wrote nor edited that sentence.) Finell (Talk) 06:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It is stressful! If any of you feel that there are some errors in the article, please feel free to edit the article and remove errors. Please help! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That's just the way it is at FAC. There is nothing unusual about comments made in this or the prior candidacy of Richard Dawkins. Finell (Talk) 06:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with people pointing out genuine errors. However, it appears to me that many of them may be either subjective or completely misguided. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 13:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Featured Article status for this fine and comprehensive article. I find nothing substantive to find fault with, and see no reason to delay Featured-Article recognition. Refinements and enhancements can always be made in the future, to any Featured Article. Nihil novi (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Mixed feelings. I think it is nearly there, but some points require a little time to be dealt with; so I'm not completely convinced that best thing is to rush to get it featured right here right now. Of course between FA and being featured, there is still time. Let's see, I will collect from this FAC a list of actionable objections that I think seem relevant and post them on the talk page. There we can use {{fixed}}, and even {{wontfix}}. --Merzul (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: criterion three concerns:
    • Image:The Selfish Gene3.jpg: how does this image assist us in understanding the topic (Dawkins himself), the book itself or the concept of meme? Why is it necessary (WP:NFCC#3A) and what is its significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8)? Additionally, the license tag for book covers allows use only in "[an] article discussing the book in question". Prose referencing the book is used to discuss Dawkins and does not appear to reasonably constitute discussion of the book itself.
    • Image:Richard Dawkins Foundation Logo.png: same questions as above: why is it necessary (WP:NFCC#3A)) and what is its significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8) of Dawkins or the foundation? Importance to the author is not necessarily analogous to importance to our understanding. As logo is essentially only text, why could prose not adequately facilitate identification of the foundation (NFCC#1)? Why do we need additional assistance identifying an organization named after the subject of the article?
    • Left-aligned images should not be placed directly under level two (===) headers per WP:MOS#Images. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Elcobbola, Dawkins coined the term meme in the book The Selfish Gene. And, the book is arguably the most important book written by Dawkins. I think the image is necessary. I also think that the image of Richard Dawkins Foundation Logo is inappropriate. I think we have to discuss this. I agree that left-aligned images should not be placed directly under level two (===) headers as per WP:MOS#Images. I have made necessary changes. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The image should stay The book is historically important as Dawkins's fundamental exposition of his conceptualization of evolution by natural selection, and secondarily for coining meme (Dawkins does like to turn a phrase). Also, it is a strong graphic image. Finell (Talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not contest that the book is historically important. I do not contest that it is a strong graphic. The image is perfectly acceptable in the proper article (The Selfish Gene). In order for fair use to be supported in this article, however, it needs to be necessary (NFCC#3A) and contribute significantly to our understanding (NFCC#8). I've posed questions above which remain unanswered. How does seeing this image do anything to assist our knowledge or illustrate that meme was coined therein or that it is his most important work? Prose is sufficient for those tasks (NFCC#1). Additionally, no response to the issue of allowable use defined in the licensing tag has been offered. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Pretty close, I'd say, though I do agree with several of Abecedare's points. I've gone through & done a bit of copyediting here & there—I hope constructively. Unless I missed it, I don't think a single example of a meme is given in the section of that name: surely that can be rectified.

I agree that the honours and talks are too listy. And how impressive is it really to receive an Oxford MA? (I think the current price is about GBP 10.) --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the process Almost all of the discussion has been about details. Many of the specific suggestions should be incorporated in the article, and many have been. On the other hand, some of the well-intended suggestions (a particular degree isn't important, some fact isn't notable in itself, some image isn't necessary) are essentially quibbles, and are not necessarily endorsed by the consensus of editors who have worked on the article or those who comment here. However, is FAC consideration a matter of satisfying a punch list? That is, is achieveing FA status a matter of making all, or most, of the lengthy list of changes suggested here?

I do not see significant disucssion of the article's overall quality: completeness of content, quality of writing, etc. The fundamental question, which is not being addressed directly, is: Is this article one of Wikipedia's very finest? If it is, then it is appropriate to fix what needs fixing before crowning the article as an FA. But it is the fundamental question that should be addressed first, in my opinion. Finell (Talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose As can be seen above, I previously commented in detail on the stylistic and writing aspects of the article, and my general opinion was that the article would perhaps fail 1a, unless those issues were addressed. However, Finell raises a very good point that many reviewers (including myself!) missed the forest for the trees. Basically the article fails 1b (comprehensiveness), given that there are at least seven books written about the subject and his theories, and the article bases exactly two sentences on such authoritative sources ("Oxford theologian Alister McGrath maintains that Dawkins is "ignorant" of Christian theology, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently." and "Another Christian philosopher, Keith Ward, explores similar themes in his 2006 book Is Religion Dangerous?, arguing against the view of Dawkins and others that religion is socially dangerous.".)
It is especially surprsing that the following festschrift is not used even once:
Grafen, Alan; Mark Ridley (eds.) (2006). Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-929116-0. 
I am afraid the article needs substantially more work than can be undertaken during the FAC. I empathize with the main editors of the article who have undoubtedly put in a lot of work, but I cannot in good faith support its candidacy anytime soon. Abecedare (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on comprehensiveness issues. I know nothing about the man beyond what I read in this article, but I am very worried about the sourcing. A lot of the article is sourced to writings by Dawkins (essentially autobiographical), and very little is sourced to the books that have been written about him. An article should use the best sources that are available, and while online sources appear to be plentiful, I don't think they are necessarily the best in this case. Please consult several of the books written about him and incoporate that information into the article (preferably cited to a particular page number). Other, more minor, issues:

  • you should have a citation at the end of each sentence that contains a quotation, even if the next citation several sentences down covers that quotation. This is to keep the quotation properly cited even if someone later comes along and adds information from another source. There are several instances of this throughout the article.
  • Need a citation for "In his scientific works, Dawkins is best known' for his popularisation of the gene-centered view of evolution"
  • Might need a citation for this "Advocates for higher levels of selection such as Richard Lewontin, David Sloan Wilson and Elliot Sober suggest that there are many phenomena (including altruism) that gene-based selection cannot satisfactorily explain."
  • Need citation for this "Despite their academic disagreements, Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship"
  • I think there are way too many External links listed.

Karanacs (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Karanacs, I don't think there are way too many External links listed. These links provide information about Dawkins' views. They are useful. You have raised some important point. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I haven't had a good look through yet, but my first impression is that this article is still in need of some polishing:
  • "Dawkins moved to England with his parents at the age of eight and later completed his education at the University of Oxford." He could hardly have completed his education before the age of eight.
  • "In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the observed complexity of living organisms ...". Awkwardly written. Better to explain what he was arguing against and then name it, as in "In his 1986 book ... he argued against the existence of a supernatural creator ... the watchmaker analogy".
  • "His father, Clinton John Dawkins, was a farmer and former wartime soldier .." What is a former wartime soldier? What wartime?
  • "Its success has been seen by many ..". Who are these many?
  • "Philosopher Mary Midgley, whom Dawkins has debated since the late 1970s ...". Eh?
  • As Karanacs has already said, every quotation needs to be cited immediately.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.