User talk:Allenmad2234

HelloAllenmad2234 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I. Footnotes A. Footnote Number 4 1. This reference comes from a source that is not trustworthy find a source that is trustworthy that states the same information or simply removed the reference. B. Footnote Number 5 1. Check out this book to make sure that the book is a trustworthy source. C. Footnote Number 3 1. This reference as indicated by the link comes from a .com domain so it is not trustworthy either. Find a trustworthy source a journal or .edu domain that states the same thing. II. References A. Richard Gonzales and Peter Ward References 1. See if it is possible to obtain these books and search for more information on the mediocrity principle. III. External Links A. How to improve them. 1. More external links need to be included. Include all of my references since they were found online. 2. Remove the one external link that is included because it is irrelevant to the content of the article. IV. Headings and Sub Headings A. Other Heuristic Uses 1. The heading can be broken down into separate components. 2. There are many claims and statements that go unreferenced 3. The structure and content of this section needs improvement. It lacks flow and rambles on and on about several related topics. This can be broken down into separate components. 4. Some sections can be edited out of this section. For example the first sentence of the second paragraph is not needed. B. The Copernican Principle. 1. The explanation of the principle is very wordy and unclear and uses ambiguous examples. Clarify the definition and use better analogies. 2. This section also lacks references and citations. V. Overall Quality A. Improvements 1. Add more content about the Copernican and cosmological Principle. 2. Add other sources that may serve as counter examples and prove them wrong 3. Impove the overall quality and structure of the article by dividing the article into appropriate sections

Allenmad2234 (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mediocrity principle, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Marcus here are some of my ideas that might help to improve your page.

One of the first things I noticed in your revision is that you did delete a lot of information that was provided in parenthesis. This was a good choice when considering the overall look and organization of the page and making sure that it does not get too cluttered. However, some of the information, such as when you deleted “in accordance with hubbles law”, is important information as well as links that provide the reader the opportunity to read more upon that topic. I would say your best bet is to delete ones that don’t provide other links to different pages.

The lead of your article is very good and it looks like you were provided with a good lead to begin with and didn’t need to make many changes. However, when reading the lead section article provided in the checklist, I noticed they want a sentence or two explaining what the rest of the article entails. I would just put one sentence about Copernican Principle and the other uses of a heuristic.

The mediocrity principle, states that life on Earth depends on just a few basic molecules, the elements that make up these molecules are common to all stars, and the laws of science we know apply to the entire universe. → I would make this two sentences since it is two thoughts.

The traditional formulation of the Copernican mediocrity principle comes from the fact that ancient civilizations thought that the Earth was at the center of the universe. → For this sentence, I would consider changing the wording “from the fact that” to just “comes from ancient civilizations thought, that the Earth…” I was taught in one of my writing classes that when writing professionally, you should try to avoid the words like and that. They are filler words most of the time.

The wikilinks to other wiki pages are very significant on your page and seems to not need any changes.

Good use of references and division of the sub headings. However, you may want to consider finding a reference for the quote from Stephen hawking that David Deutsch quoted. It will make the article more reliable.

With your Gott reference, I do like how it is used since it does a good job of explaining the idea behind Darwins theory. I would say however that if you want to add any more then maybe one or two sentences could work explaining why this theory was constructed. Maybe mention that it was created in order to show how human kind was quick to believe that we are significant species over all others.

Same goes with your Beisbart article, but since you already have an article about the same basic ideas, you may not need to add too much more since you don’t want to seem redundant.

Im not sure which citation you wanted to cite your third source behind but from looking it up on the internet it seems like it will help in explaining your humans are not unique section. Since the book seems to refer to the new findings under the idea that human intelligence will change the universe and once it is there then it will not die out. This can almost be a rebuttal against the Darwin ideas in some ways.

The last two references I noticed are going to be used in your humans are not unique section as well. This is good for the ideas of evolution of humanity so good work. Since it seems like these two reference the evolution of humanity, maybe you want to keep these two in your Humans are not unique section in the beginning explaining why this idea came about and then refute Darwins idea with your third reference.

Also the third reference ( Barrow) could also be used for your final section Opposition to the Mediocrity Principle since you don’t have any references there yet.

Overall you did a great job (better than I have so far) and I hope this helps. 64.93.241.74 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)