Wikipedia:Featured article review/Intelligent design/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Raul654 22:49, 14 December 2008.

Review commentary

 * previous FAR (13:51, 24 July 2007)
 * Notified: SandyGeorgia, SIrubenstein, ZayZayEM, Cla68, Amatulic, RoyBoy, Filll, CSTAR, DLH, Raul654, Odd nature, JoshuaZ, Guettarda, ScienceApologist, Tznkai, Dave souza, Kenosis, FeloniousMonk, KillerChihuahua, Ed Poor, Ec5618.

I am nominating this article for FAR based on the following FA criteria:


 * 1) (a) Well written. Some of the language, especially in the lead is very difficult to read.  In addition, there are embedded wiki-code in numerous locations that make it nearly impossible to edit the article.  I've edited numerous FA articles, and have rarely seen such stuff.
 * 2) (c) Factually accurate--there are constant disputes on the factual accuracy of certain statements in the article. Edit-warring has continued on these points.
 * 3) (d) Neutral--edit warring appears to shift the neutrality of the article. Several issues include the Kitzmiller decision, the applicability of DI strategies, etc.
 * 4) (e) Stable--subject to regular edit warring.
 * 5) Lead--no longer summarizes the article accurately.
 * 6) Citations--inconsistent and not up-to-date.

I think this article is very hard to read, using language and logic that are often difficult to follow. It is a constant tug of war between opposing POV's that need consensus. At this time, the article is not worthy of the FA tag. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 21:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * comment The wiki-code issue isn't a reason to remove from FA. If edit warring by POV pushers makes an article not stable then by that definition no highly controversial article will ever be "stable" enough. As long as there is a general consensus on what it should look like stability is not an issue. As of yet, no strong opinions on the other issues. Will need to take a look in more detail when I get a chance, but it would be nice to have more expansion on what is at issue precisely in regard to the lead and citations. 22:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)JoshuaZ (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, it's not a reason to delist it. It's just one of many reasons to delist this article.  The whole reason for the wiki-code is inappropriate, because so many explanations are required to make sense of the logic.  The problem is that the article requires difficult logic, so it has to be explained underneath the article's surface.  That makes no sense to me.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep FA What JoshuaZ said. The article has been surprisingly stable for years when you exclude the attempts at pro-ID POV-pushing. Odd nature (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ON, I don't think we're at the point of Keep vs. delist. It's still the comment stage, and it's not stable, it lacks neutrality, the citations aren't even close to FA level, the lead is difficult to read.  I refuse to allow this FAR to be a POV vs. NPOV discussion.  It is what makes a quality FA discussion.   And I contend this article is no longer FA quality.  My opinion on ID is well-known, so apparently I'm truly looking at what is right now not an FA.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ON, please seeFeatured article review. We aren't at the stage of Keeping vs. delisting.  There are issues with the article that make it not of FA quality.  Not to repeat myself, but I'm shepherding this through the process.  Comment on the quality not on whether there is POV pushing, which I know exists.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * comment I'm surprised to see this is FARC'd. The lede, "difficult to read" or no, is virtually identical to the FA version as it appeared on the wikipedia Main Page in Oct 2007. The nature of the topic itself is controversial, a fact that determines from the outset there will always be a heightened level of edit disputes, and no version of it will ever be solidly stable in the forseeable future. It appears there's more a general uneasiness that "anyone can edit" that particular article. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, as I said above, this isn't about the POV of the article, and I can't even begin to respond to your other comment about who or who cannot edit it. It's about quality, and does it meet FA standards.  Based on FA standards, it does not.  Do we fix it?  Yes.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I speak of a general uneasiness toward editors rather than the edits because I'm seeing edits which were already included in the original FA version reverted now because they're perceived to have come only recently from editors newly editing the article.Professor marginalia (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the four (!) images of non-free cover art meet the NFCC requirements for the use of non-free images. Even if one of them met the requirement individually (an argument that has never gained consensus), the ratio of four non-free images to two free images is quite bad, especially for a pseudo-scientific topic for which numerous on-topic illustrations (a mousetrap, an eyeball) could be created. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Perfectly valid and good faith nomination for FARC. This article definitely needs it. However. I do still feel it meets suitability for FA-status. I do not find readability a problem, and coding issues are not a reason for delisting. Other issues such as factuality and NPOV are not substantiated. Edit-warring never goes unnoticed on this page, and the page normally returns to original form relatively quickly. Delisting high-profile edit-war/vandal targets that have a dedicated watch-base is letting terrorists win.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Objection: Keep vote aside I have one comment relevant to FARC (and three more that will be going to talk page, and I do not feel are sufficient cause for FA interference - Accurate portrayal of ID polls, possible minor NPOV violation, Given props where props are due).
 * Non-free image use rationale. This was brought up before and was very controversial at the time. However, the egregarious use of non-free images of book covers on this page is an issue. WP:FA Requires all non-free images to be used appropriately according to the Non-free content criteria. All 10 criteria MUST be met. These book covers continue to not meet criteria 8 "Suitability":
 * At issue is that the presence of these pictures does not serve to "significantly increase readers' understanding", nor would their removal be "detrimental to that understanding". Indeed the only Image I see greatly increasing the readers' understanding in a way that only an image can is the representation of The Creation of Adam at Intelligent_design. This clearly illustrates the CSC's use of religious iconography in a way that would be difficult to effectively express in prose. None of the book covers actually present material in pictorial form that contributes to knowledge of this article.
 * To comply with FA standards these images must be removed (unless some editors can explain how the images -not their captions- supply necessary information that can only be conveyed in pictorial form). Removal of these images however would mean intelligent design would be poorly illustrated, and therfore bland and no longer eligible for FA status.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * USER:CBM notes that alternative free image illustrations that remain on-topic could easily be created.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * USER:CBM notes that alternative free image illustrations that remain on-topic could easily be created.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh Gesh or, if "Gesh" is too religion, I'll vote Charlie Brown - "Oh brother". I don't like the See also or the further reading. I believe that some of the sources are blogs and the rest. I also see the second paragraph of "Origins of the concept" lacking a citation at the end as with the third paragraph of "Overview" and the first of "Specified complexity" and the first and last paragraph of "Fine-tuned Universe". Third paragraph of "Movement" along with weird use of italics in that paragraph. The end of "Defining science" lacks a citation and the end of the second paragraph of "Peer review". Missing from the end of the first paragraph of "Arguments from ignorance" also. The end of the first two paragraphs of "Kitzmiller trial" and the quote are not cited. Quote in "Reaction" is not cited. But yeah, this is a huge bag of worms, and the submitter should be flogged. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am being flogged. No one is happy about this.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Very brief MoS flyover: I spotted WP:ACCESS issues in "Movement" wrt image layout and templates.  I see quotes in WP:ITALICS (wrong) everywhere, including the citations.  WP:PUNC logical quotation issues here and there that will be irritating to locate and fix (probably just ctrl-f on ". and ." and ," and ", to check them all).  What looks like a quote, but in italics not quotes, after:  As a reaction on this situation in Holland, in Belgium the President  ... Can any of that lengthy See also be worked in to the article, per WP:LAYOUT?  There's a mish-mash-mess of date formats in the citations, but with all the citation templates in flux due to the recent date delinking, it might be premature to work on that, and better to wait, fingers crossed, for a bot or script.  But setting aside the date formatting, the citations need other cleanup (I saw strange bolding, missing italics on periodicals, and missing info at least.)  That's actually the longest external link farm I can ever recall seeing on an FA.  But my general impression is that, in terms of MoS, the article is much cleaner than it was at its last FAR; cleanup will not be too hard, except that there are so many citations that need work (using Dr pda's edit references script will help).  The dab and external link checkers in the toolbox indicate a few links and dabs need repair.  A random check of the citations at the bottom of the article revealed a missing publisher and a completely wrong citation, where the URL didn't point to the source indicated, and formatting issues, so citations need review and cleanup. It is very hard to work around all the HTML in the article, but Dr pda's edit references script helps avoid all of that for ref cleanup work.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I found about 20 dead links in citations. I'm not touching them, because the embedded wiki-code is nearly impossible for me to decipher.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeat :-) Go to 's user page, get the edit references script.  It's really helpful for working on ref cleanup on large articles, and it only shows the text within the ref tags.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Much of the style of the article has been improved since the last FAR. For instance, the "Overview" section is no longer fully one-third of the article, as it was at that time. From a stylistic point of view, the article is in much better shape than it was then. For comparison, here is a version around the time of the FAR. --FOo (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - no article should have an overview section, as that is what the lead is. If the overview is a section, what subsection of material does it cover? What is missed out? If the subject matter is theoretical underpinnings, history, development, definition, or whatever, the name of the heading should reflect it. I haven't looked closer yet. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you back this up with some policy/guideline. I have seen Overview used in other articles of high quality (eg. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1). Is an exception valid for portal-0style parenbt articles on broad topics.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument is thus - the lead functions as the overview (I am unaware if it always did but it certainly does now, an overview being the summary of salient points). Given this, another summary within the article is thus redundant and repetitive. Overview precisely what it says - the idea of a subheading is that certain information relevant to that subheading is partitioned off therein, eg history, causes, characteristics or whatever. Overview is so general..what couldn't go in it? It is not a definable subsection. If the overview is in essence a definition, then rename it thus, or etymology, taxonomy or whatever. I am thinking about other examples and may be swayed. I was never a fan of seealso sections but have come across some (though not many) articles where they make sense. I will chekc up on whether it has been discussed at MOS before. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Although I think that the text in this article is far from perfect, it would be better to expend energy on the hordes of related articles that are subpar, rather than chewing over this article again in what promises to be an immense fight and a waste of time. I am not sure that consensus could be reached on a "better" version of this article, given that trying to work on this article is like swimming in molasses.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 20:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's not how it works. If this isn't the best of class at Wikipedia, then it deserves to be delisted.  After doing several of these FAR's, I've noticed what is high quality, and what isn't.  Frankly, FAR's are used to improve the article, not, as you appear to be assuming, to cause a fight and waste time.  Well, I don't waste my time, so if you would rather not assist in helping the article be better, then I suggest you strike your comment and move on.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep FA While improvements can be made, at worst I would consider them incremental and likely are more stylistic in nature. The article retains excellent structure, comprehensiveness and referencing (which can be fixed in time). I believe it remains an ideal example of how to do an article on a touchy subject. Though I personally would like to address over-referencing, ie. 3 or more refs for one point. - RoyBoy 03:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as FA I personally recommend for interested WP users, admins and FA reviewers alike to review and edit this inherently controversial article (an option always available to theoretically anyone on earth within certain ever-debatable parameters), but without a new formal FAR procedure at this time. ..... Alternately, since I appear unable to read, understand, and follow instructions at the top of this FAR request, I request that this FAR request be declined in favor of business as usual, with a bit of extra attention to any minuiae to which willing reviewers may care to attend.... Kenosis (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral as to whether to keep as FA or not. But, here are my concerns with the article:
 * Some kind of "Definition" section should begin the article. The "Integral Concepts" section doesn't give the reader a simple and concise introductory definition of the term.  A two paragraph Definition section at the beginning, that perhaps summarizes the Integral Concepts section, should be able to do this.  The Definition section should not include any criticism of the concept.
 * The Background section doesn't go far enough back. The section should include a brief history of the entire "evolution vs creationism" in US public schooling debate, i.e. a synopsis of this article with a "for further details see" template at the top of the section.  Then a history of what directly led to the development of ID, including the "Origins of the concept and term".  The last three paragraphs in the Background section appear to give a definition of the idea, not background.
 * After that, the "Integral concepts" section mixes more background with definition. Can't the two be separated?  The "Intelligent designer" section briefly defines the concept, and then launches directly into a debate as to its validity.  It would be better if one paragraph was dedicated to defining what Intelligent Designer is supposed to mean, then follow that with a paragraph or two about the validity of the idea.
 * The "Movement" section again combines background with current definition. "The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s." Isn't this a repeat of information that should be included in the Background section?
 * The "Creating and teaching the controversy" section is the section that appears to have the most problems with NPOV. It reads like it was written by someone seeking to discredit the idea.  Phrases such as "A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is convincing the general public..." and "The intelligent design movement creates this controversy in order to..." sound like editorializing.  Perhaps some of the sources use this kind of language.  We shouldn't, however.  The fourth paragraph which begins, "Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching..." is written more NPOV.  Remember, if someone can read the article and not be able to discern the opinion of the author on the subject, then it has successfully been written with NPOV.
 * If this article was an essay on ID, then the "Defining Science" section should be there. It's not an essay, however, so I'm not sure why that section is included.
 * The "Peer review" section has some NPOV issues. The first paragraph is NPOV.  The second is not.  It needs to say something like, "The American scientific community states that Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science..." in order to make it sound like the article's author isn't taking a side.  The third paragraph is NPOV.  The last paragraph in that section is especially POV.  How about, "The Discovery Institute claims that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,[182] including in its list the two articles mentioned above. Critics from the scientific community reject this claim, stating that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Instead, say critics, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor,[183] consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.[184]"  Isn't that a little more NPOV?
 * The next two sections should be shortened and interwoven into the "Concepts" section. As they now stand, they look like criticism sections tacked onto the end of the article.
 * The "Kitzmiller trial" section is NPOV until this line, "As predicted..." Make this say, "As Jones predicted..."  See the difference?  By putting it this way, you place the opinion as coming from the judge, not from the article's writer.
 * Do away with the "See Also" section. If those topics can't be linked to somewhere in the article, then they don't belong in the article.
 * One question...all of the criticism in the article appears to be from the scientific community. Have other Christians criticized the idea?  With all of the Christian denominations out there, there must be a few of them that don't agree with the ID idea or movement, or at least portions of it.
 * I hope this helps a little. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments. This isn't a point where we're going to "vote" to keep or delist, so I think your issues need to be addressed before a formal vote is undertaken.  I'm hoping that someone addresses these points.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these constructive detailed points. A Definition section could be useful, if only to point out the vague and shifting definitions presented by proponents. Whether it should not include any criticism of the concept is an issue of weight and giving "equal validity", and as the section should be based on third party sources this will mean that it is not uncritical. A background section may be a good idea, the issue is covered in outline in the timeline of intelligent design which could be linked as a main article. Detailed attention is needed for the other points you raise, one issue is that peer review in science sets particular standards of open criticism that "in-house" pseudoscientific reviews don't meet. The Judge Jones point was implied by the preceding paragraphs in the section but your suggestion is a useful clarification which I've implemented. The input is much appreciated, hopefully people will find time soon to discuss and implement these points. . . dave souza, talk 08:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For my part, I disagree with most of OrangeMarlin's points. The article is well written. It's factually accurate although some facts could be expanded; religious criticisms would be good to have more of. The lead does appear to summarize the article accurately, and the citations are comprehensive, although periodic checks need to be made to ensure that all the links still work. As for neutrality, I agree that there is not enough effort to solicit suggestions from ID proponents on how to make improvements without wholesale whitewashing in their favor. As for stability, that's a non-issue. Controversial articles will never be stable, yet they can still be featured. That said, I think the whole issue of whether or not this article qualifies as "featured" is ridiculous. Designating a featured article, in my view, makes it less stable. The FA designation does nothing to enhance the quality, it's just a label. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the lead is well-written at all. The second paragraph is an exercise in redundancy, reproducing the same sentence four times with slightly different wording and sourcing, only to say it again in the fourth paragraph.  That's just bad writing.  Whether it passed FAR with that lead before is irrelevant: it's not something we should be holding up as a good example. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good criticism. Also an excellent way to shrink down the lead. A shortening ID ≠ science to a single sentance on Science groups and Kitzmiller may be helpful. Perhaps space can be made for non-background material from teh renamed "overview" section. As mentioned teh lead should be the overview.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm putting in a couple of hours a day and barely making a dent in the work needed, so I'll start a list here:
 * See also needs pruning, see WP:LAYOUT
 * External links need pruning, see WP:EL
 * Logical quotation needs review, see WP:PUNC, in both citations and text; this will be time consuming.
 * Ellipses have spaces, and is the article using or not using brackets (preferably not), see WP:MOS
 * See WP:CITE, should not be mixed with the cite xxx family of templates because they render different styles, please eliminate citation templates.
 * Quotes are not in italics, see WP:ITALICS, WP:MOS
 * There is not a consistent biblio style in the citations. Author name, last name first, followed by first name.  Quotes are sometimes before citation info, sometimes after (cite templates place them after).  Cite news is often used for web sources.  A lot of info is missing (dates, publishers, etc.)  A thorough citation audit is in order, as there are many errors.  It's taken me several hours to do only a few sections at the bottom.  For now, I'm ignoring the inconsistency in date formatting of accessdates because the cite templates are in flux due to the recent MoS change, and I'm hoping someone will write a script.
 * There is still a WP:ACCESS problem with image layout in the "Movement" section.
 * I think I caught most of these myself. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section heading "Overview" is redundant and unencylopedic; perhaps a better heading can be found.
 * What is the deal with the awful inline HTML comments? They do make editing quite difficult.
 * The Guardian/BBC source mix up here needs to be sorted:
 * Inline comment removed without correction of the source. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is trivial but time consuming elbow grease kind of work: I won't be able todo it all myself. I'll add to this list as I review. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment To echo Kenosis, I don't believe use of FAR is needed, but it seems to have brought extra eyes which is great. I do however, agree with the broad criticisms of Orangemartin that the article needs considerably better writing, I just don't think the FAR proccess is the correct one. However, SandyGeorgia's work on the article has revealed apparent substance flaws in the citations, which I think would be severe enough to justify temporary delisting the article if they cannot be corrected quickly. I may add more of my thoughts here to supplement my opinions on improving the article that I have at the talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note about how FAR works, Tznkai. Have a close look at the instructions.  We don't temporarily or quickly delist an article (ever), and we take as long as needed at FAR in the hopes of restoring an article to status, as long as work is progressing.  The trivials can be addressed here right along side more substantial issues.  Sometimes, regular editors may not see issues that have crept in, and FAR can be useful to get more eyes on the article, and more hands typing on the time-consuming issues.  FARs may run as long as several months if work is progressing, so there's no need to consider "temporary delisting".  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Roger--Tznkai (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose, accuracy, neutrality, stability, lead, and citations. Marskell (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I left this so long. Let's get official declarations now. Marskell (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's over two weeks now, and there are still no official declarations. So, let's remove. The article is just too long, has too many sections, is repetitive, strays off focus, and has a very advanced reading age. DrKiernan (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. "... and has a very advanced reading age". It was my impression that a "FAR" is a prerequisite to "removal". Not that I care much, as the contemporary relevance of the topic appears to have largely changed from a current event to an historical event. Yet, it's pretty much the same article as it was when featured. Maybe it should be reviewed for that reason alone. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It fails criteria 1a, 2a, 2b and 4. DrKiernan (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are also issues with criterion 3, as there is no consensus on the acceptability of the images under the NFCC policy. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Note Can we notify the users that commented above to gather consensus in this section? Joelito (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I vote strong remove FA status, for reasons I've given on the article's talk page. There's no consensus on what ID is in the first place. This has led to the article starting with a turn of phrase that labels a large body of (scientifically illegitimate) work and ideas to be classified as an assertion (a speech act. See category mistake). And the 'assertion' is lifted verbatim from a highly biased source. The article has NPOV issues, it's redundant, not direct, and overly long. There's a lot of information there, and several great sections, but as a whole it's not FA material. There is no clear path to improving the article, so I don't see it happening without the incentive that removal of status will provide. [An aside: The instructions above don't make clear what should be done. They state we should not vote keep/remove, yet plenty of people are above.] –MT 04:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep as FA Is by and large worth being featured. It has some minor issues that need reworking. Most of the serious objections seem to have been dealt with. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Still neutral. I note that since I reviewed the article on 16 October, it appears that only relatively minor changes have been affected to the article .  The article has a lot of good information, but as I noted above, it has some organization and NPOV issues. Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as FA, work is in progress to find an improvemnt to the ever-contentious "definition" of this deliberately woolly subject and other improvements are in progress. Agree that some sections are over-long, will review and boldly attempt to apply summary style more ruthlessly. . dave souza, talk 09:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 *  Work still needed, relative to the list I posted earlier, I just did a brief check and there is still a lot of work needed. I left some sample edits.  The very large external links farm is still a concern; it might be pruned per WP:EL.  There is still a large number of unformatted or incompletely formatted citations, and I saw sources of dubious reliability, like dailykos.com, that might need to be checked.  There is still a mixture of citation styles, breaching CITE; the citation templates need to be converted to the cite xxx family.  The biblio style is still inconsistent.  Most of the list I posted above (almost two months ago) hasn't been addressed.  I originally thought I would be able to help out more with these kinds of changes, but with hundreds of refs, it is very tedious work, and I'm having problems with my eyesight, so might not be able to contribute much.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Daily Kos cite is an interview with Barbara Forrest, arguably the world's leading expert on "intelligent design". She's quoted verbatim in the Daily Kos presentation. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as FA. Agreed with SandyGeorgia that it needs some tightening up. As to length and the "summary style" issue, I note that when the article was featured on the main page 12October2007, it was 161kB in size. This was, of course, larger than recommended but was deemed suitable because of the complexity of the topic. Today it is 169kB in size, most of which is the result of the addition of international perspectives in the last section of the article. Unless there are different article-length criteria now than there were at the time it was featured, it seems to me that it remains of appropriate size for the type of content the article presents. .... Kenosis (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.