Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Atheism articles by quality

Seconded. Well referenced on most aspects, clear, pretty much everything it needs in terms of content. A couple of very minor stylistic things that might be worth fixing in layout - intro isn't quite in line with WP:CMC/X preferreed format, some of the headings use capitals for words they shouldn't (see WP:HEAD), but in terms of actual content I think it's excellent, especially on the publication history side of things. --Mrph 22:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A few more points:

• Need to avoid trivia sections in articles
• Images need Fair use rationales

Sorry to keep adding hoops for you to jump through, but we're learning about this assessment process as much as you. I think this could take a run at FA status eventually. Hiding Talk 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Now GA rated, after a successful Good article nomination. --Mrph 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

WikiProject Biography Assessment

This is very close to being a GA, if not one already.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

Needs better everything. Needs to be completely reorganized from top to bottom. It is way too long. Parts of some sections literally repeat other sections. Prose is often ungrammatical, awkward and prolix. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I upgraded this article to B, because it clearly rates it. I think it does continue to need better referencing (and inline citations for every paragrah) before it could be passed for good article status. Right now it looks like it's a good candidate for GA, however.--Bookworm857158367 13:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

Stalin was born in 1879, not 1878

See ref 1 in article, that explains the discrepancy. Walkerma 04:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)

• Major copyright problems with the images. Many paintings have been tagged as fair use, but the rationale is missing (this is easily solved). I have more problems with the Life magazine cover, as this would certainly not be fair use (as per the counterexample of the Barry Bonds baseball card). And the photograph of Picasso and his friends does not state who the photograoher is, so the claim of PD can not be verified.
• In line references are too few.
• The intro lists several periods. A logical structure of the article would then be according to these periods, but alas. Errabee 10:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Picasso's full name is actually Pablo Diego José Santiago Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno Crispín Crispiniano de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz Picasso, otherwise known as Pablo Picasso. I think they missed out Santiago and Cipriano. (edit comment)

March 21, 2007

Dear Brother Dan:

Even so..., God still loves you as we do. I have and will continue to pray for your salvation each and every day of my life until I leave this earth (or you do). I believe you know where I stand on this issue. I believe that Jesus died on the cross for our salvation that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Jesus means the world to me and I plan to die (earthly body) as a born-again Christian. There is no need for you to respond to my comments. Just know I love you as a brother and will continue my prayers for you no matter what. I want to get as close to God each day as I can. I leave you with this scripture in the Psalms - David, speaking to God: "But as for me, my contentment is not in wealth but in seeing you and knowing all is well between us. And when I awake in heaven, I will be fully satisfied, for I will see you face to face." Psalms 17: 15

I love you Dan,

Your brother,

Tom Barker (edit comment)

There is no narrative drive. (edit comment)

Generally, the article on Sam Harris seems like a thinly vialed endorsement of his ideas.

The reasons for Harris' notability, specifically, the debates in the US re creationism and intelligent design vs. natural selection/evolution, the events of 9/11, debates about the "clash of civilizations", US empire, the subsequent "war on terror", and controversy over us foreign policy such as "preemptive war", the use of torture, and US military presence in the Mid East, which is obviously where Harris' arguments concerning religion and Islam generate the most heat among supporters and critics alike. Generally, the article is written in a a way that obscures understanding of why Harris is notable (in my opinion) in order to weasel out of discussing why he is also so controversial.

In summary, the article lacks sufficient context and could be improved by way of the following:

• Harris' biography, specifically, something about his upbringing, the historical context, motives for and development of his ideas about religion, atheism and spirituality.

• I also think that Harris' ideas concerning "spirituality" need more fleshing out as he poses these as an alternative to "religion" and this to is a source of much controversy, even among atheists. Many Atheists have expressed gross reservations regarding whether or not Harris can even properly be called an Atheist himself. Therefore, these ideas are worthy of greater elaboration.

• There aught to be separate sections concerning his position re the Iraq war and occupation since what he has said about it has been a major source of criticism and to spite his claims he has held different positions on its efficacy and ethicasy over the last few years.

• Given the special place that Islam occupies in his critique of religion, his support for a what would amount to an imperial program of military subjugation of the Islamic world and his position on "ethnic profiling" (what most would simply term "racial profiling") he has been accused of "racism" (most recently in a debate with Chris Hedges) and this serious controversy is not explicitly addressed in the article. In fact, in the "controversy section, it only mentions that Harris debated with Hedges, without any mention of what they debated. Harris himself has seen fit to refute such accusations on his own website so this issue can't be insignificant.

• Generally, the controversy section needs to summarize the various arguments against Harris' "world views", and should be organized into subheadings.

--Betamod 06:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (edit comment)