Wikipedia:Peer review/Theory of multiple intelligences/archive1

Theory of multiple intelligences
This article seems rather one-sided. It is almost uniformly critical of the theory, and the single contributor who has written most of it seems fond of rhetorical flourishes that have no place in a neutral source. This article needs to be cleaned up by someone more persistent and knowledgeable than myself.
 * Seems to me that what it needs is an advocate for the theory. As it stands, the POV is pervasive, but mere copy editing wouldn't do enough to improve it. Dandrake 08:39, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Also could do with the "To do with..." sentences being turned into full sentences. ··gracefool |&#9786; 09:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article is one sided in the context that a modern day scientist would be appear to be one-sided if he were writing about alchemy or astrology.
 * That comparison could only be made if the theory has already been proven false. This is still under dispute, unlike alchemy or astrology. Furthermore, you wouldn't WANT a modern day scientist to write a paper on alchemy or astrology because it would likely focus too largely on who it was proven wrong, and you will miss a great deal of information.JLAF 04:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Information that was proven wrong. Anyways, there is about as much evidence for Gardener's theories as there is for Bigfoot. And astrology isn't proven wrong (mostly because nobody's bothered to, being an irrational theory, much like Gardener's) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.178.98 (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)