| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I tried listing this article for a [1], it was rejected swiftly. While I concede my nomination was premature, I can't agree it will take significant time to correct most of these issues.
I have fixed the dead links. I will list issues from the FAC below, please add others as you see them. - RoyBoy 04:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sourcing of controversial/creationist statements
Valid concern. - RoyBoy 04:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Title of article
Tweak to reflect the idea that one does not object to Evolution, but to the various theories and ideas contained within. - RoyBoy 04:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with this. To begin with, "evolution" refers not only to mechanisms, but also to the fact of evolution. That's the way it's used, both scientifically and in common usage. So it is opposition to "evolution", even if you're just talking about the mechanisms. But the article doesn't limit itself to that - it also addresses opposition to the dea that evolution happened - in this section, for example. Guettarda (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- U.S. centric
Entirely appropriate for the subject matter, however the dominance of the U.S. does not make objections (even if repeated) in other countries non-existent. Conceding it is U.S. centric does not make it a U.S. monopoly. Yes, there are objections to evolution in Britain, Australia and Asia, we should try to reference those. - RoyBoy 04:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, it's US-centric, which is appropriate since anti-evolution is US-centric. But it's not exclusively American. And the article reflects this. AiG is referenced. They were founded in Australia, and even after the AiG/CMI split, they're still run by an Australian. If we can find anything to broaden the scope, then it needs to be expanded, but even people like Harun Yahya still use the same arguments. Guettarda (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- All theories of evolution?
Do we list and expand upon all theories relating to evolution? Particularly pre-Darwinian and early competing theories, and the objections leveled against each. Or should we force a title change. - RoyBoy 04:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- No. We follow the common usage of the word, not "every possible usage". Maybe things need to be made a bit more clear, but the comment your referencing was based, IMO, on a lack of knowledge about the subject matter. Guettarda (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)