Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Objections to evolution/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:34, 8 April 2010 [1].
Objections to evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): RoyBoy and Orangemarlin and Hrafn and Filll 03:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
The articles seems to be quite complete, detailed, referenced and extensively discussed and challenged. The headers might be tweaked, but I'm hopeful that will likely be the least of the issues brought up during the FA process. I've added the co-nominators to acknowledge their content creation, their participation is optional. - RoyBoy 03:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was two links to dab pages. I cleaned one up; the other was a link from within a quote, and per the MOS I delinked that (and the other links within that quote). Guettarda (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. A dead external link to [2]. [3] doesn't load. Ucucha 03:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question about this article's role - I see this question has already been discussed extensively on the article's talk page, apparently without resolution:
- The title is strange: the objections discussed are objections not to evolution but to theories of evolution.
- What is the relationship between this article and Creation–evolution controversy, whose topic appears very similar?
- Every section in the current article is concerned with both creationism and evolution. Does one of the two articles make the other redundant? If not, then from a criterion 2b/2c perspective, is the current article complete? PL290 (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to the first comment "evolution" refers to both 'fact' and 'theory' (or, some would prefer, fact, theory and path). In addition, if you look through the article you'll see that it discusses objections not only to the mechanism of evolution, but also to the fact of evolution. Guettarda (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to the second, the "controversy" is primarily about the political controversy; where it deals with objections to the science, it links to this article. Both articles are over 100k, so merging them is not an option. Guettarda (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the third question. Guettarda (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have the co-nominators agreed to this FAC? Orangemarlin has not edited the article since December 2007 and has not edited Wikipedia for over one year. Graham Colm (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think RoyBoy listed them as a courtesy, given their contributions to the article. Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the procedure; it implies they support the nomination. They might not. Graham Colm (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – sorry. Articles on evolutionary biology attract a huge amount of attention. This one, while giving an excellent synopsis of the arguments that support the theory, has too many faults to be considered for promotion. Most importantly, it lacks sources for controversial statements, often the ones that begin with "Creationists". The title is also wrong. It should be "Objections to the theory of evolution by natural selection", and should probably add "in the US", since the article is almost totally about the debate in America. Many of these "objections" are not an issue in other English-speaking countries. I saw WP:MoS issues, but on the whole the contribution is well-written and engaging, albeit too long. I don't think Wikipedia is the place to debate with creationist theories—there is an important distinction between describing a debate and taking part in one. Actually, I think this nomination should be withdrawn. It has not been properly nominated, it has not been fully prepared and is in danger of languishing at FAC for months while all its problems are fixed. Graham Colm (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I agree with Graham. One can't object to evolution, simply to the various theories of evolution. This creationism vs Darwinism debate is a peculiarly American phenomenon in any event, particularly as it's portrayed in this article. There was, of course, some initial resistance to Darwin's ideas in England when they were first made public, but that was obviously a long time ago. If this was a general overview of objections to all theories of evolution, then I'd be expecting to see much wider coverage of pre-Darwinian theories. Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.