User talk:Thompsma/Sandbox

''This article gives an introduction to evolution. The core basics of natural selection are described as well as an expanded view of evolution as it is understood by science and society. This article uses studies performed at a high school level to identify where students are most conceptually challenged and often mistaken in their understanding of evolutionary theory. School teachers and authors writing about evolution at a level that can be understood by everyone are greatly challenged by the complexity and scientific understanding of the evolutionary process. There are fundamentals to evolution, however, that can be easily understood at an introductory level that this article provides''.


 * I trust you want an honest assessment; understanding of course I'm no expert - especially as it pertains to content. The first paragraph represents an interesting approach; however, there are certain criteria which define encyclopedia entries. I suspect the opening paragraph does not conform to any of them. The tone is that of a course syllabus or perhaps the prelude section of a textbook. In an encyclopedia - the reader needs to obtain a general understanding of the term or topic within the first paragraph. This approach describes the goal of the article, the challenges in accomplishing this goal, and offers some insight into how the article will attempt to over come these challenges. It closes with words of comfort - that it can be done. Yet the reader has gained no greater understanding of evolution. Are you addressing the readers or those writing the article?


 * I'm uncertain as to what the response will be of such a text book approach in introducing the topic. From an educators point of view, its a good strategy to set the tone. From an encyclopedia perspective - it breaks all the guidelines! I'm certain it will not meet FA criteria - if that is still a goal. It will likely earn a "tag" stating this article does not conform to encylopedia style - please help to re-write it. Hopefully, others will join us and provide an assessment - especially since this is such a bold stylistic departure from traditional articles. Its not my desire to be a negative force and this may in fact be the way to travel. --JimmyButler (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Your sentiments are along the lines of what I was thinking as well. However, I put this together to partially redesign the lead and also to lay out a strategy for the article. The article suffers because it is kinda duplicating the main evolution article and also because it presents an antiquated and mainstream view on evolutionary theory. I wonder if we could break out of this pattern and utilize some of the educational research as a way of keying into the places where people get most confused. This would make it more of an introductory article. I will think this through a bit more. In the meantime, however, I suggest you take a look at David Sloan Wilson's recent publication: Wilson, D.S., M. Van Vugt, and R. O’Gorman (2008). Multilevel selection theory and major evolutionary transitions: implications for psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science . This link takes you to a copy-edit version that is identical to the published version. Once you read this you might also have a different perspective.Thompsma (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 2
''Teaching and writing about evolution at an introductory level is complicated at two levels. First, natural systems are inherently complex and hierarchical. Second, evolution is a highly popularized and controversial topic that means different things to society than it does to science. Societal views on evolution include an expanded set of beliefs, including alternative ideas or misconceptions, that go beyond those expressed and understood to be logically consistent within the philosophy of science and peer-reviewed scientific studies.''


 * Similar concerns as addressed in paragraph 1 - the topic of evolution is not yet the topic. This statement: natural systems are inherently complex and hierarchical - so early, without the reader possessing any understanding of the subject is most intimidating. The reader is informed in advanced that they're in for some deep s%&t!!!!! Which is truth.
 * This statement Societal views on evolution include an expanded set of beliefs, including alternative ideas or misconceptions, that go beyond those expressed and understood address a truth; however, should an article on a topic begin by stating what is essentially - "You've arrived here with a befuddled mind and possess misconceptions that the writers will attempt to address. Yes - they very likely do have misconceptions - but encylopedias provide information and hopefully by clearly explaining the concept remove these misconceptions. There is an edge of insult or perhaps a challenging tone, that many readers will sense - especially if they arrive seeking clarity as it relates to the religious views. Note, text books and teaching supplements use radically different approaches - such as a common misconception section. However, it does invite controversy! My point being - this is a major departure from the encyclopedia arena.
 * Unfortunately - I need to depart - House at 8:00 - a personal vice. I can see in the subsequent paragraphs your clear understanding of this topic- which supersedes my own. I will need quite time to chew on them. Again - your approach is a radical departure from the traditional format - of course you know this - what I do not know is whether such an approach will be acceptable. Guess we will wait and see! --JimmyButler (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comments - this probably will not fly. However, we could make some of the ideas feed into the underlying plan for the article. I will think about this a bit further. Thanks for the feedback!Thompsma (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)