Wikipedia:Peer review/Intelligent design/archive1

Intelligent design
Needs a definite look at its structure. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This does not need a look, it has just gone through a major rewrite and the community will whip it into shape in time. This article is also unlikely to become a featured article, even then.  Ta bu should make constructive criticisms instead of a fly by judgement, without historical context.--Silverback 01:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * And Silverback would do well to not take my listing of it on peer review as an attack, but as a general request for looking at it by the rest of the community. The article's structure currently reads like a debate, not to mention that is reads like a big bulleted list, so has a poor style. If that's not a reason to put it on peer review, I don't know what is. As for the assertion that it will never be likely to become a featured article... whyever not? It seems that even Silveback believes that the article needs improvement, which is part of peer review. Oh, incidently, my request to look at the structure, while brief, is constructive criticism. I'm asking for that to be resolved. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about bulleted lists, they are much more readable that long comma separated and conjunction joined sentences, and are easier to edit as new items arise, especially when items in the bulleted lists also have dependent clauses requiring commas.--Silverback 00:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not wrong about bulleted lists. For those who don't understand the topic, they are unclear, confusing, and offputting. They certainly have been for me. For those who know about the topic, they might be OK. We don't specifically cater for those people however. My advise is to turn those bullet point into prose, because those bullet points look terrible. The proof of the pudding? Flip open any newspaper, magazine, book, encyclopedia or text book and you will see bullet points only very rarely. We should do no less. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * White space is more expensive in print media than on the internet. Bullets are especially useful for lists, because it is easier to see where each entry in the list begins, and thus to check whether the one you have in mind is present or to quickly skip those you are already familiar with.  Prose is more serial and less random access.  Your analysis doesn't hold water.--Silverback 13:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you should consult with David Spiegel, a professional designer. He states (and I agree with him) that bullet points are bad design. However, it is your own analysis that fails. I would suggest you look at almost every one of our featured articles for good examples of writing style. Bullet points are good for those who know their topic well, they are not good for detailed explanations. Bullet points should be used sparingly, if at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Does he say why they are "bad design"? Was he thinking of print media or a common design shared by print and the web?  The opinion of an authority is not very useful without the supporting information and reasoning.  Your point about bullets being good for those who know their topic well sounds like you are referring to a powerpoint presentation, which has even lower resolution.--Silverback 07:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Not only does it need a look (–esp– following a rewrite, always), it is clear that any objection to this is rooted in a highly distorted understanding of what Peer Review is, and what role it should serve within the collaborative editorial process of Wikipedia. I cannot think of a single article I have been involved in where I would not welcome Peer Review; future articles, too. It's an impossibility because I (and I argue, anyone) should welcome it &mdash; it's supposed to be a good thing, a useful mechanism. As for the article, the problems identified by Tbsd are ones I noticed, too. Specifically, I am not in favour of the ongoing excess in bullet use. I also find the writing style lacking and overeditorializing at times. I applaud the removal of the section title: A test of disengeniousness for those promoting ID that took place since this Peer Review notice was issued. It is noteworthy, by extension, that the article itself states that "[t]o date, the intelligent design movement has succeeded at publishing one article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington." (!)

I am not familliar with ID, but I accept a lot of the criticisms of it as exhibited in the article (in fact, some could be made more poignant). Additionally, Dembski confuses the issue by using "complex" as most people would use "improbable" is a peculiar sentence that needs to be rephrased (at the very least, it's bad form and should say 'said to confuse'). What I would like to see a more clear exposition of is the ID metaphysic's (un-humble, un-graceful, and rather philosphically vulgar, I think) most pressing internal contradiction: that, at some point, any ID'r was a priori existing, i.e. God, yet according to ID itself, breaking this creationist succession should be viewed as impossible (i.e. this naturally-improbable complex system, God, would need to be created via ID to exist, too; and likewise for God's ID'r, God2, ad infinitum). Heh, that this is not a particularly inteligent design for an ontological theory is a gross understatement, imnsho. What was I not talking about? El_C 23:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No, read the descriptive paragraph for this page. This article is not anywhere near finished, and has just been through a major rewrite.  I would state that it qualifies for "needs attention", if it weren't getting attention.  The community is (are?) peers too.  However one looks at it, the interloper put this request on the wrong page.--Silverback 00:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the "interloper" did no such thing. I am asking for attention and for comment on this article peer review, the purpose of this page. I don't understand why you are getting so defensive! I'm not saying your work stinks, I'm saying that we need to get further assistance from outside editors. Peer review is the perfect place for this. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No? So this was an incomplete rewrite, or a rewrite for an incomplete article then? No, a rewrite of an article whose talk page archive go as far back as 2002 is, in fact, a good candidate for Peer Review. El_C


 * No!, such characteristics do not make it an article that meets this standard "For pages that are close to Featured Article status", the "needs attention" page would be appropriate, if it weren't still getting plenty of attention.--Silverback 14:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I find the article well-balanced and easy to read. I like the bulleted lists. I don't know who David Spiegel is. (I presume that you don't refer to the psychiatry professor at Stanford University.) TBSDY, do you have a link to Spiegel's website/work? Axl 13:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Gah, sorry, I made a mistake. It's David Siegel, not David Spiegel. Doh! He wrote the book "Creating Killer Websites", an excellent book on creating and designing website. He's a professional designer that came into website design business after doing more traditional design work. See http://www.killersites.com - Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * TBSDY, thank you for the link. I see that the website's homepage includes a bulleted list. So does the next page. And the next.... Axl 12:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh. The problem here, is that bulleted lists aren't good for explaning information. We want prose, not lists! I once listed the Windows XP article on FAC, and the main objection was that Wikipedia is not the correct forum for bulleted lists. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Incidently, I should note that this article has improved style-wise out of sight since I looked at it! When I added this to peer review it looked like this. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Aside from the glaring spelling mistakes (my own pet peeve), the old version wasn't that bad. However I agree that it has improved from the recent changes. "We want prose, not lists!" - TBSDY. Who are "we"? I am not aware of a specific Wikipedia policy regarding the use of bulleted lists. With respect, I disagree with your opinion about them. I find the lists useful for highlighting points succinctly, which may be expanded upon in a subsequent section. Axl 15:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "We" would be the wikipedia community (at least those who participate on featured article candidates). As I've already stated, I once submitted Windows XP to FAC, however this was not featured because it had too many lists. The old version was that bad. It was hard to read for those who knew little about the topic (clearly you already know something about it).
 * Let me demonstrate:
 * "We" are the Wikipedia community
 * The wikipedia community who participates on WP:FAC at least
 * I once submitted Windows XP to FAC
 * it didn't become a FA because of extensive use of lists
 * Lists are hard to read for those who have little or no knowledge of the article
 * You clearly have some knowledge of the article: useful for yourself, not for others
 * Lists are harder to read. Also, encyclopedias are not just big lists of points. Some points are OK (I never said we should stop using them altogether!), but once a good proportion of an article becomes a list then the article's should really start to be rewritten. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I am unable to check exactly who rejected Win XP on the basis of the bullet lists. In any case, we have a difference of opinion that will not be resolved. Let's leave it at that. Axl 17:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please assist in moving this article to old peer review, I don't know if it requires administrator priviledges, but it apparently requires archiving, which I don't know how to do. I think the article should be labeled oldpeerreview as well, as one of many example of what peer review accomplishes.--Silverback 18:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sheesh, hold your horses! It's got another day to go (as in "one month"). I'll do it then, as I have been for a while now. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)