Evolution Article

Hello Slrubinstein, I was a witness to the vast changes in the evolution article. Once it started it was like a wild fire. In fact, I saw it coming and tried (and failed-oddly phrased and hyperlinked on Dec 8)to improve the first paragraph. After Adam's changes, I realized the experts have had their say it seems appropriate to let the novices have ago. I wrote to Roland and Graft with this sentiment, but also my apprehensions-that it is too simplestic, may lead to misconceptions, not neccessarily improved where it is good, and this method of rapid and bulky changes will start a stampede (which it has). Roland is studying for exams, but dropped in enough to say he hated all the changes. I have been trying to be supportive of their effort, but hoping all the expert editors who gave me a hard time would resurface to defend the merits of the original article. I thought the first paragraph did need some attention, but I thought minor edits would ensue not vast rewrites. This could go on forever. Why can't an article be protected at certain stage so Talk could continue but changes would go before a committee to decide whether the change or addition is warranted (keep it current). I actually wrote a section for Evodev a few weeks ago, but never added it. I was concentrating on a couple of good examples, but now I realize a better way. There is some movement in embryology and developmental biology which is good. Fill does have some good editing for a Simple:evolution article. Isn't there a wikipedia for kids also? Although I wanted to change or add to the original, it was an excellent and informative article. It has been a week since the major overhaul so now maybe it is time to critique.