Wikipedia:Peer review/Creation-evolution controversy/archive1
Plan is to get this up to FA: It's a controversial article, but I've always been impressed at how well it's done. All suggestions welcome, though please don't just shout about howwe're all going to Hell. It tends to offend. Adam Cuerden talk 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, an intresting read. Although I think it in a way its a little one sided. Reading it, it seemed to leave out scientific arguements against creationism, rather talk about what creationists challenge in evolution. In another note, I also not too fond of the History section full of bulletins. I would go as far as suggest it being removed. - Tutmosis 23:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's an awkward article in some ways: It has to maintain a balance whilst making clear Creationism isn't scientific. This isn't easy to balance, and I think it manages quite well in a difficult situation. Could possibly stand to be a little stronger, though. Adam Cuerden talk 00:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- We'll I'm not saying the article is bad, don't get me wrong. Its just was a random comment about a small impression I got. Article definetely doesn't violate Neutral Point of View. My main concern is the bullet "History" section which looks akward and out of place. I wish to see it become prose and maybe even merged with "Ramifications of the controversy". What do you think? - Tutmosis 01:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- This article gives as more respect to creationists then they deserve. Any more skewing would misrepresent the actual facts.
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.54.207 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 24 November 2006
True... it HAS undergone a certain drift in the wrong direction since I first found it. I shall try and redress this. Adam Cuerden talk 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to help assist bringing this article up to FA status, it looks like an interesting project. I want to thoroughly review both article and talkpage, as well as the Review (so far I've just skimmed them). --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)