Talk:Objections to evolution/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    "The ideas gained vast popular audiences" - Unclear, referring to the objections or to the evolutionary ideas?
    Fixed. - RoyBoy 04:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The quotes of Kitcher are a bit long, perhaps some of these could be summarised?
    b (MoS):
    Looks OK to me.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    Reference needed for "Although most of Darwin's contemporaries came to accept the transmutation of species based upon fossil evidence"
    Fixed. - RoyBoy 04:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    Could be improved by more citations to the scientific literature for factual statements
    c (OR):
    Could be improved by more attribution of statements, see below.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    The relationship between Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church is lacking, would make a good comparison to the relationship with Protestantism in the history section.
    Done June 8th 2009. - RoyBoy 18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    History section also focusses a bit too much on the recent past and continuing controversy, rather than giving a general overview of how the majority of religions have accommodated evolution through the development of theistic evolution.
    b (focused):
    Yes
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    More of the arguments should be attributed to specific people and sources. eg instead of "It is frequently argued that a great weakness of evolutionary theory is that it does not, or cannot, explain a certain aspect of the natural world." attribute this argument to a prominent advocate - "Creationists such as John Doe and Jean Doe argue that a great weakness of evolutionary theory is that it does not, or cannot, explain a certain aspect of the natural world."
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    Yes
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    Does not apply
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Yes
  7. Overall:
    Pass Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]