Wikipedia:Peer review/Baraminology/archive3
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has not had a recent successful peer review
Thanks, Bettering the Wiki (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I closed the last peer review for this article because it had major cleanup banners. It still has a help need from an expert banner, but the neutrality disputed tag is gone, so I will review it. Thanks for your work on this interesting article - here are some suggestions for improvement.
- The disambig links tool in the tool box at upper right here finds one circular link - Baramin just links back to this page and so should not be linked here at all. It is an entry on Wiktionary - that would be an acceptable link wikt:baramin, piped like this baramin
- The external links checker also finds that several of the links are very small - I checked one and it was a redirect as the web page had moved. Please check and fix those.
- I also note that some of the references do not give sufficient information. For example, ref 1 needs publisher and accessdate at least (and date if given), and ref 5 is just a bare link - Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
- Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase .
- The direct quotation from the Bible needs a ref (if nothing else to tell the reader which translation is being used).
- I realize because it is a pseudoscience it will be harder to get relaible sources, but please make sure that the sources used do meet WP:RS. Have any books on or including baraminology been published, for example?
- For sciences describing mainstream science, I would use mainstream sources such as textbooks and journal articles. I do not think http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ is the most rigorous source for current views on evolution.
- I think the article could be expanded a bit - for example, it seems that it would be good to give the Hebrew for the word "created" (as is done earlier for "kind") in The word "baramin", which is a compound of the Hebrew words for created and kind, is unintelligible in Hebrew.
- This sentence (The word "baramin", which is a compound of the Hebrew words for created and kind, is unintelligible in Hebrew.) also needs a ref.
- Spell out abbreviations like YEC on first use
- The one image, File:Creationist orchard.gif, unfortunatley appears to be a copyvio cropped from this image
- I wonder if it would make sense to combine the History and Interpretations of Biblical kinds sections some how. I think it owuld be good to know who came up with the words baramin / baraminology right in the Interpretations of Biblical kinds section, and it might flow better that way too
- The article is fairly short and I am not sure what else to say about it. A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - not sure what would be a good model here, but there are several WP:FAs at Category:FA-Class Rational Skepticism articles which might be useful models
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)