Talk:Objections to evolution/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * "The ideas gained vast popular audiences" - Unclear, referring to the objections or to the evolutionary ideas?
 * Fixed. - RoyBoy 04:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The quotes of Kitcher are a bit long, perhaps some of these could be summarised?
 * b (MoS):
 * Looks OK to me.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * Reference needed for "Although most of Darwin's contemporaries came to accept the transmutation of species based upon fossil evidence"
 * Fixed. - RoyBoy 04:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * Done June 8th 2009. - RoyBoy 18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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
 * 1) 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."
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Yes
 * 1) 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
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)