Talk:Explore Evolution

Initial comments
Looks good. A couple of rough edges that might do with smoothing off: Hrafn42 13:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "trumpets" will probably get into trouble over NPOV, a less colourful word might be better.
 * "consistent with the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, "Stand up for science" and "Critical Analysis of Evolution"." lacks a start to its sentence (and is not a continuation of a sentence either in the earlier quote, or introducing the quote).


 * This article seems heavy-handed and anti-intelligent design in it's form and function. It's neutrality is in dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.237.98 (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Starts well, critical, but open, then fails quickly: " it aims to provide a "lawsuit-proof" way of attacking evolution and promoting pseudoscientific creationism without being explicit" is an assertion of motive, not at all commentary on content. This is very poor; it's not just NPOV, it's not on topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.110.195 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the aims are rather obvious, have changed "it aims" to "its evident purpose is". . . dave souza, talk 19:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Needs some serious work . ..
As explained in the Comments section, I would barely rate it a good "Start." —Brightflash 12:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Direct quotations
The article is a bit heavy-handed with the templated direct quotations, which breaks up the article alot. I'm going to turn some of them into inline quotes and/or paraphrases. HrafnTalkStalk 15:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Timmer article on 'Explore Evolution'
HrafnTalkStalk 05:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

World Magazine
Is World Magazine, which is extensively cited & quoted in the article a RS? It would appear to fall under WP:RS, and so should not be cited except for information about themselves. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Need section on contents
One thing that is glaringly missing is any presentation of the book's actual contents. Without this the whole article is pretty much pointless. Lehasa (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)