Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Evolution

Evolution edit

Article is still a featured article.

This is a well written and highly informative article that does not adequately or clearly explain evolution or biology. Therefore, I am nominating this article to have its featured status removed because it fails to meet the Featured Article criteria that a featured article be comprehensive. The contents of this article would be better placed in History of evolutionary thought or somesuch. --malathion ^talk 21:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

remove, Hmm, it's probably all in there, but you have to dig a lot. We can renominate for FAC when the article has a lot more clarity. Evolution (Skelton, 1993) starts out with reproduction, the struggle for existence, natural selection and variation. These are not clearly marked in the article. Kim Bruning 21:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. This article is an exceptionally tough read, and seems to be erratically structured. Plenty of good stuff in there, but quite inaccessible. Compare the opening paragraph of our article:
In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next. In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time.
With that of Britannica:
Biological theory that animals and plants have their origin in other types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
I cannot dispute that we are a heck of a lot more in-depth, but at the same time it's virtually unreadable, and doesn't answer the question of what evolution is with any sort of directness. The rest of the article continues in the same vein. This reads like a hodge-podge of useful info, not like a decent article. Too much hyperspecific information is being crammed in what should be an overview article.
Disclaimer: I am not a biologist. Kim Bruning is, however. JRM · Talk 21:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I won't take a position on removal, since I don't consider myself really qualified to judge, I'd like to get a more definitive sense of what's wrong with the article. Graft

It could be more approachable to non-experts. It could have a definite organization instead of the "and now this aspect of evolution" approach it has now. It starts off with an innocent (and long-winded) explanation of what a scientific theory is, and then immediately delves headlong into various detailed aspects of evolution. But what is evolution? The article seems to have a hard time summing it all up. A "change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species"? That seems like a very weak description. Then you get an alternate definition like "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next", which is meaningless without reading up on genetics. Even the "history of evolutionary thought" section doesn't clear everything up. Is that really what it's all about?
This article reads like it was developed bottom-up, which is a fine mode of development, but the ultimate presentation doesn't seem to be straightened out. JRM · Talk 02:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep I love the way creationism tries to creep in to wikipedia. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not quite understand the relevance of that comment. None of the persons who support this request so far (malathion, Kim Bruning and myself) are creationists. And creationists would likewise benefit from a proper featured article on evolution. JRM · Talk 17:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep Evolution is a complicated concept. To avoid confusing the lay-man is usually to confuse the concept. Alleles are taught in 10th grade biology, so I would advise JRM to get his money back on his Highschool diploma. This is a well thought out article, if you are looking for one line explanations check out wikiquote or maybe some kind of coloring book. Lets try to keep wikipedia smart, and avoid dumbing down. Besides, do not throw out the baby with the bathwater, if there is something missing from this article you can edit it, instead of nominating it for deletion. Unless I am mistaken to the collective editing nature of Wikipedia. --Reid 18:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To clear up a possible misconception: nothing is being nominated for "deletion". The article's status as Featured article would just be reset. I'm likewise not advocating removing material to "dumb down" the article. I can't agree with the sentiment that a "smart" article can afford to be poorly accessible (to the "dumb" layperson or for that matter any other reader).

You are, of course, correct in saying that we could improve the article; in fact, this is what should be done to get it back to featured status again. But while I'm aware of what alleles are, I do not consider myself quite knowledgeable enough to edit. JRM · Talk 18:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, i misunderstood the purpose of this talk page. Also, i apologize about the highschool diploma remark. I think i will try and make a few edits. I am not a biologist, i am a neuroscience undergrad, but i will give it a go. --Reid 18:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]