Talk:Objections to evolution/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by RoyBoy in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- a (major aspects):
- 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."
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- Yes
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)