Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:59, 1 May 2007

History of Science Unassessed High‑importance

This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of the creation–evolution controversy was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: April 23, 2007.

The current controversy

I suggest The current controversy section is moved to the Creation-evolution controversy entry and removed from here. Terjen 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It needs to stay there, but we can't just have an article that abruptly cuts off before the modern day. Adam Cuerden 19:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not? The current controversy is off topic for an article about the history of the controversy, and covered by other entries like the Creation-evolution controversy and the Politics of creationism. Perhaps you could just link to the other entries in the introduction instead? A major benefit is that it strictly limits the scope of the article, so that it doesn't end up with bloat about what's going on currently. Terjen 19:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Possibly. But it does seem that even a history article should brefly state current events. On the other hand, too much of that and we end up with a section on Kitzmiller, andother on the DI, etc. I don't know: You may be right. Adam Cuerden 19:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not liking this lead...

Speaking strictly from a GA criteria standpoint, (Yea, I know, weird for a creationist eh?) I think the lead in this article is extremely problematic in terms of GA status. I don't know if this article was split off of some other article i've contributed signifigantly to, but I think it only fair to give a warning, right now, the lead doesn't actually mention Creationism, Evolution, or anything related directly to the controversy at all, it just has a few events of history which are suggested as places where the church did things which might seem similar to interactions between Creationism and Evolution, I think. It doesn't really appear to summarize much in the article, and since WP:LEAD is in the GA criteria, I think this article's GA nomination will be doomed to failure if the lead isn't re-written. Homestarmy 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. This was split off of Creation-evolution controversy, and probably needs a little more fixing up. I'll see what I can do. Adam Cuerden 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

• The previous commentator is correct about the lead. It should provide a brief overview of the material covered by the article not a historical lead in.

• The article could use a short section in the front, perhaps Before Darwin, that would provide some historical context. It could allude briefly to natural theology, and perhaps the controversy over publication of the Vestiges of Creation.

• There needs to be some allusion to George McCready Price and the Seventh Day Adventists, and the influence works like The New Geology had on the movement of fundamentalists towards the YEC positions of the Genesis Flood and the ICR. This would provide the same sort of context that the brief comments on the modern synthesis do for the BSCS textbooks.

• Some of the time line entries (especially the early ones) don't make much sense. A time line in an article on the history of a public controversy should focus on events that contributed to the controversy not on the origin of scientific or philosophical ideas. I would think the publication of Vestiges of Creation had a bigger impact on the controversy than the publication of Zoomania. I also think Principles of Geology had a bigger impact than Hutton's work. The entry for Gosse and Omphalos is more like a subsection than a time line entry.

• Near the end of the article there should be at least a section on the spread of the controversy outside the US. Right now the only reference to it is the one time line item about the Italian education minister. The final chapter of the expanded (2006) version of Numbers book is a good source.

I will try and make some contributions myself Rusty Cashman 09:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My very initial two cents: the bibliography is sprawling, but only a fraction of the sources are actually cited and some are not particularly good. Meanwhile, two of the best broad secondary sources are not used at all: Larson's Trial and Error" (for the American legal controversies) and Michael Ruse's The Evolution-Creation Struggle. I will also try to make some contributions to this article soon.--ragesoss 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Passed as GA

This article has been passed as a good article. I would like to see the lead section rewritten to more accurately summarise the content of the article. With the exception of this lead section the article is well written and includes citations where required (a great many actually). Further, it appears, to an outsider to the debate, neutral and comprehensive. It is also relatively stable and contains suitable images. Nice work. MidgleyDJ 07:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes this article good was the work of a creationist who was run off by Adam and the evolutionists. LOL. And that creationist was actually going to the library, and not using google to search partisan web sites, for source material. Pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.215.17.61 (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

GA Review

No offense to User:MidgleyDJ, but the lead doesn't seem like something that could just stand for a little bit of improvement, it still looks almost the same as when I first made my comment about how off-topic it was. I'm filing a WP:GA/R over this article. Homestarmy 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be inclined to support you on that. My negative comments have yet to be addressed either. Besides the lead, I am especially concerned about the time line entry for Omphalos which is just entirely inappropriate in size or scope for a time line entry, and in my opinion is only marginally relevent to the article.Rusty Cashman 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

GA delisted

This article has been delisted per the now archived Good article review and the instructions at said archive. IvoShandor 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

The following was removed from the article pending citation. "Coinciding with the rise of ],{{Fact|date=April 2007}}" ImprobabilityDrive 04:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed history of science articles
• High-importance history of science articles
• WikiProject History of Science articles
• Delisted good articles