Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Baraminology/1

Baraminology[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist per my review below. Geometry guy 19:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baraminology needs more people who are experts on the topic to contribute. The neutrality of the article is also in question.--Gniniv (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA issues. This article seems to present several problems that articles on relatively minor but contentious issues present. In a nut shell, the focus seems to be on NPOV issues in the lead, when the entire structure of the article - which the lead is supposed to summarize - is desperately poorly developed. At present the article fails to meet multiple GA criteria.

The most serious problem is an almost entire lack of reliable secondary sources. Sure, there are plenty of creationist sites referring to Baraminology, but critiques from mainstream science barely mention it, leading to embarrassing footnotes such as

"creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes." (Note that baraminology is a type of creation science.) The National Academies (1999). "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition".

So far, the only non-creationist reference to baraminology I found in the article is

Williams, J. D. (2007). "Creationist Teaching in School Science: A UK Perspective". Evolution: Education and Outreach 1: 87–88. doi:10.1007/s12052-007-0006-7

This is already a 2a issue.

Can I suggest that those who wish to criticize baraminology might actually write about it first, with reference to reliable secondary sources? A minor topic such as this is not the place to pursue the creation-evolution debate. I'm not going to touch criterion 4 (NPOV), because quite frankly, there isn't much point when the article fails GA in so many other ways.

The lead does not summarize the article, but is instead a battleground (1b)
The prose is confused. What kind of article begins "The Bible mentions kinds in several passages"? "Kinds" isn't even quoted. "The word "baramin", which is a compound of the Hebrew words for created and kind, is unintelligible in Hebrew." is uncited and meaningless to the general reader. "Some advocates believe that major differences in the appearance and behavior of two organisms indicates lack of common ancestry." combines weasel words with a mismatch between subject and verb. "However, neither cladistics,... nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists." is unsurprising, but "however" provides an inappropriate editorial contrast. (1a, 1b)
Multiple sentences are not reliably sourced, or not sourced at all, e.g. "Apart from what is implied by these passages, the Bible does not specify what a kind is."
The article fails to describe what baraminology claims (3a), while going into unnecessary detail (3b) about mainstream scientific and theological views. Thus it seems to have a purpose to discredit baraminology as pseudoscience (it is obviously so, but that is not Wikipedia's role) without actually presenting decent sources making such comparisons (2a/b). This is also therefore OR by synthesis (2c).

If my imagination is lacking or this article can conceivably be brought to GA status in short order, please comment here! Geometry guy 23:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to close this discussion if no comments are received by 29 June. Geometry guy 22:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is not deserving of GA status until reputable sources (from both perspectives) are included in the article...--Gniniv (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]