Wikipedia:Peer review/Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
A recent case (2005) involving intelligent design; see also the Scopes Trial. Long overdue for PR (despite at least two small problems), I've listed this page now.
Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: The topic is interesting, and this is a good start, but the article needs a lot of work. The introductory paragraphs are well-written, but the article deteriorates further down. Just briefly, I'll list several problems that pop out.
- Many claims in the article lack sources, and the article therefore fails to meet the core WP:V guidelines. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every direct quote, every set of statistics, every claim that is apt to be questioned, and every paragraph.
- WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists says in part, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." The existing article is much too list-y, and most, if not all, of the lists would be better as prose paragraphs.
- Many of the citations are incomplete. A good rule of thumb for Internet sources is to include the author, title, publisher, url, date of publication, and date of most recent access.
- Some of the quotations are much too long. It would be much better to paraphrase Judge Jones' decision, with a citation to the full decision, than to insert the long blockquote.
- Using a Wikisource document as a reliable source WP:RS violates WP:CIRCULAR, I believe. It would be better to use in-line citations to government sites that have published the proceedings.
- The link checker finds five dead urls in the citations.
- The dab tool finds one disambiguation link.
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Quick comments by Ruhrfisch
- I glanced at this article as I have heard the judge speak. Hear are a few comments (I agree with all of Finetooth's comments above)
- I also think the article needs to follow WP:NPOV better - the response to the decision is mostly about the intelligent design side's responses, with relatively little about the other responses.
- I also note that the nominator of this at PR seems to have not made any edits to the article. In general, articles at PR are nominated by those who have worked to improve them already. The expectation is that a PR is at least prepatory to improvement.
- I would also see if there could be a lead image - perhaps the picture of the judge?
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)