Talk:The Greatest Adventure: Stories from the Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Having now put about 13 hours of work into this piece, I hope it is now safe to say that this article is acceptable in its citation of sources. Let me know, anyone, if the episode list warrants a stub or not. Otherwise, I feel this article is good to go.The Bulldozer 23:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding my article, giving this series the attention it deserves. I think the episode list is comprehensive enough, as are the other details about the show. The Jeh 04:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GreatestAdventureBackArt.jpg
Image:GreatestAdventureBackArt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 'Errors and Omissions' section
I have tagged this section with a 'POV' template, as I believe it seems to implicitly promote a point-of-view: that of Biblical literalism and 'creation science'. It includes sentences like:
- 'Modern baraminologists would argue that this is incorrect, as there would not have been enough time within the Days of Creation for speciation to form.'
- 'studies have shown that the Ark would have had to be designed around a certain set of design principles to create a balance of numerous factors, making most popular depictions throughout history highly unlikely.'
- 'the Noah episode also ignores the claims of modern baraminologists.'
These quotes seem to assume that 'baraminology' is a recognised science, which it is not. (It is, at best, psuedoscience.) If we want to be properly neutral about it, perhaps we should include mention of the fact that most serious historians don't believe the Flood, or the story of Noah's Ark, happened at all.
Then again, maybe this whole section is unnecessary - this is a children's programme, why does it need an extensive 'criticism' section analysing it as though it were a scholarly thesis? It looks to me like someone is taking a kids' cartoon show far too seriously. Terraxos (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
