Wikipedia:Peer review/Savanna Theory/archive1

Savanna Theory
Need input as to whether this is actually NPOV, since it seems to be advocating a fringe scientific theory Silas Snider (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC) this review made possible by AndyZ's templates
 * The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article. The history and actual theory should have their own sections.
 * Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
 * Considering that the first subsection is ==Problems with the theory==, I would say it's not NPOV. As suggested above, the history and substance of the theory should be the first couple of sections. Then say why some people disagree. I would also rename ==Problems== to ==Criticisms of the theory==.
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.  The ==Problems== section should avoid using the passive voice and say specifically who objects to what (with references and possibly inline citations).
 * There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.
 * Hope that helps - The Catfish 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.  The ==Problems== section should avoid using the passive voice and say specifically who objects to what (with references and possibly inline citations).
 * There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.
 * Hope that helps - The Catfish 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hope that helps - The Catfish 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)