Jump to content

User talk:DLH/Featured article review Intelligent design

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

FA1 Review Criteria

[edit]

Please Summarize Review/Editorial Issues and Actions in this outline. (NO VOTING List/Delist here) One to two lines per person per criterion please. Leave/place long discussion elsewhere. Put detail in discussion page. DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA1a Is it well written?

[edit]
  • 1. Is it well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable?
  • Improve prose. It evidences edit wars. Needs systematic editing, compaction. DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs improvement. There are still plenty of weak sentences and the whole is not well organized. --FOo

06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Tighten up prose: (Abecedare)

FA1b Comprehensive?

[edit]
  • (b) Is it "Comprehensive", not neglecting major facts and details?
  • Highly US Centric (Eusebeus)
  • more work on non-US elements (JoshuaZ)

FA1c Is it Factually accurate with inline and reference citations?

[edit]
  • Mixed: Major errors needing correcting. See comments moved to discussionDLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Largely accurate. "Major errors" is an exaggeration. --FOo 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style issues. "style issues, especially with citations (for example providing publisher, year of publication etc,"(Abecedare)
  • Cleanup. "external links could probably use a cleanup too with regard to guidelines." (Morphh)

FA1d Is it Neutral-Fair & without bias?

[edit]
  • Endemic anti-ID bias deleting statements of ID positions: Frequently states critics' but not ID positions. “Owners” rarely allow corrections or improvements. DLH 04:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content fine; style lacking. The heckling tone, in which every piece of information about what ID people think is immediately rebutted, gives the appearance of a work of debunking, not an encyclopedia article. Featured articles about controversial topics do not adopt this tone. --FOo 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • worst example of how not to hammer out an NPOV compromise (SandyGeorgia)

FA1e Is it Stable, w/o edit wars?

[edit]
  • Poor: Ongoing edit wars with frequent revisions by “owners”.DLH
  • Shouldn't be. This article needs a lot of development still, which is being resisted out of (somewhat justified) fear of biased editors wrecking it. --FOo 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA2 Does it comply with style manual, WikiProjects?

[edit]

FA2a Has it a concise summary?

[edit]
  • Imbalanced summary: Lead section fails to summarize major positions. Excessive detail on issues in the lead. DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not summarize. Lead does introduce the article but does not summarize the material in it. --FOo 06:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excessive intro-too many references (Eusebeus)
  • Better summarize the article. (Morphh)

FA2b Has it Hierarchical headings?

[edit]

FA2c Has it a substantial table of contents?

[edit]

FA2d Has it consistent inline formatting with inline/end citations?

[edit]

FA3. Has it images & media?

[edit]

FA4. Is the length reasonable and is it focused

[edit]

FAR is closed, do not continue to edit here

[edit]

This FAR was closed. Please to do not to continue to edit this page, it is supposed to be an archived page of discussion relevant to the now closed FAR. If you want to continue on with this discussion DLH, use your user talk page or create a subpage in your userspace. FeloniousMonk 06:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]