Talk:Baraminology/GA1

GA Review

Comments: I did an initial copyedit, fixing minor issues with capitalization in section headings, reference positioning, wikilinking and wording. Overall, the article seems close to good article status. It's well-written, robustly sourced, broad in coverage, neutral (even considering usage of 'pseudoscience'), and (reviewing history since end of May) stable. The good article criterion most unfulfilled seems to be 6 -- Illustrated, if possible, by images. Perhaps a significant editor could explain why the article lacks images other than that in the image box, which is inspecific to baraminology. Some other minor issues:

• The 'Baraminology' section should be retitled per WP:HEAD so that it doesn't repeat the name of the article.

Fixed by another editor. Emw2012 (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the same section, the phrase "biblically literal, young earth creationist interpretation" seems redundant and should be contracted to either "biblically literal interpretation" or "young earth creationist interpretation". And is baraminology necessarily YEC? Nothing about the article suggests that baraminology assumes the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. Certainly some other types of creationism (as opposed to theistic evolution) reject universal common descent, common ancestry between man and ape, and cladistics in general.Emw2012 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The main proponents are mostly YECs. It's not the young earth part of yec, but the 'god created everything directly x years ago' part. Should be fixed now? –M^T 00:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clearing that up. In a comparison of different types of creationism, you'll see that gap creationism, which is distinct from YEC, also rejects macroevolution. Unless there is a way to group the two other than 'biblically literal', I think your revision is the best solution for now. Emw2012 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think that there are suitable images. The candidates are either ridiculous, or unnecessary. There are some images from baraminologists, such as ReMine's groupings [1], and little separate twigs that suggest unrelated taxonomies, but these concepts are trivial and might even be confused by illustration. We might also try to find pictures of a bunch of dogs to illustrate 'dog kind', but this just seems silly. We could also have adam and eve in the garden of eden with all sorts of animals, or noah leading pairs up to the ark. These last would be the most preferable type of images, but seem a bit like filler. –M^T 01:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that, this article for now seems to be a fair exception to GA requirement #6 regarding images. Emw2012 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested second opinion: The article seems to qualify as passing, but considering this is my first GA review I've requested a second opinion. Emw2012 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)