Wikipedia:Peer review/Baraminology/archive1

Baraminology

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Comments on improving this GA to meet the FA criteria are appreciated. Thanks,    M   23:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Doing...—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remarks on first reading
• I'm afraid I'd say this is a way short of FA status for the moment.
• I'm an atheist and a Darwinist and I cleave strongly to the evolutionary hypothesis. You'll find few people less sympathetic to creationism than me—but even I think this article goes over the top in its rejection of Creationist hypotheses. I think it would be possible to tell the truth and still phrase this material more diplomatically.
• I think it would be better not to say "Baraminology is pseudoscience" as baldly as that, in the main body of the text, not even with the references. I'd suggest saying "Persons x, y and z say that Baraminology is pseudoscience^{<ref><ref><ref>}".
• Biological facts do not show that all life has common ancestry. What they show is that all life we have found and tested appears have a common ancestry.
• Several paragraphs under "Interpretations of Biblical kinds" are unreferenced. Source or cut.
• The article is in Category:Articles with dead external links from April 2009, and it needs not to be in that category.
• I'll come back and re-read a second time, with fresh eyes, a bit later on.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If the criteria is comprehensive coverage and not length, then what areas should be improved? The "people say it's pseudoscience" point has been discussed extensively in talk. Each time, the argument ends when someone points out that "X thinks Y" (an expression of opinion) is an inappropriate way for an encyclopedia to express a fact, which is usually attributed using a citation.[1] Though it's true that all tested life has a common ancestor (what "true" means is hazy here, unless we stick to the relevant scientific interpretation of truth), we've also done this sufficiently many times to establish it as fact ("evolution is both fact and theory"). Thanks again.    M   19:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Actually I think Wikipedia is the only mainstream encyclopaedia to use inline citations—and even that's only because of disputes. (Wikipedia may or may not be an encyclopaedia, but it's certainly an argument. Jimbo's to be congratulated for inventing the biggest, longest argument in the history of human thought. Inline citations are the Wikipedian way of winning it.) But I take your point. :)
• Re-reading...—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• The lede says Baraminology was developed in the 1990s, but the article says it was first proposed in 1941. That could be clearer.
• The article says how ReMine defined a baramin. Did Wise agree, or did he have his own definition?
• Reference 2 says "the NAS states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level." But the page it takes you to does not say this; the quote should be followed by a direct link that takes you to the page where this is said.
• Reference 4 should give a retrieval date.
• Reference 6 should give an ISBN, assuming it refers to a printed source. (There weren't ISBNs in 1961, if I remember correctly, but hopefully a subsequent reprint will have an ISBN?)
• Reference 15 should give an ISBN or ISSN.
• I'm not happy with references 22 and 23, which are effectively negative references. I've never even seen one of those before, and I don't like the idea of being able to cite things to a non-result. Is there a consensus about whether this is okay?
• Reference 25 goes to a redirect rather than a direct link to the article.
• Hope this helps. I also hope another editor gives a second review, if you decide to make any changes as a result of my remarks.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)