Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Intelligent design/archive2

message: Readers of this page are advised that the vast majority of edits on it are by DLH, and not by the editors he has ascribed them to. They may or may not reflect the current opinion of the editor, or the context in which the comments were made. --Michael Johnson 04:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

message: Please SUMMARIZE Review/Editorial Issues and Actions in this outline. (NO VOTING List/Delist here) One to two lines per person per criterion please. Leave/place long discussion elsewhere. Put detail in the project page. DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA1 Review Criteria

message: *1. Is it well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable?
*Improve prose. It evidences edit wars. Needs systematic editing, compaction. DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA1a Is it well written?

message: * (b) Is it "Comprehensive", not neglecting major facts and details?
* Missing sections: Assumptions, Evolution limits, Predictions, and Discrimination. Science Demarcation needs Stephen Myers major paper.DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA1b Comprehensive?

message: * Mixed: Major errors needing correcting. See comments moved to discussionDLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA1c Is it Factually accurate with inline and reference citations?

message: * Endemic anti-ID bias deleting statements of ID positions: Frequently states critics' but not ID positions. “Owners” rarely allow corrections or improvements. DLH 04:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA1d Is it Neutral-Fair & without bias?

message: * Poor: Ongoing edit wars with frequent revisions by “owners”.DLH
* Shouldn't be. This article needs a lot of development still, which is being resisted out of (somewhat justified) fear of biased editors wrecking it. --FOo 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA1e Is it Stable, w/o edit wars?

message: *Imbalanced summary: Lead section fails to summarize major positions. Excessive detail on issues in the lead. DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA2a Has it a concise summary?

message: *Fair hierarchy: Needs rearranging. Eg Origins, PositionsDLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA2b Has it Hierarchical headings?

message: * Fix Peer Review: This needs to be moved up one level. Separate out Scientific Research.DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA2c Has it a substantial table of contents?

message: * References need compaction, improvementDLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA2d Has it consistent inline formatting with inline/end citations?

message: * Prefer more images:  Sundial helps. Add Behe's mousetrap, flagella, Dembski's filter. DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA3. Has it images & media?

message: *Excessively long: "Redundant repetition" should be compacted. Summarize longer sections & move to their own page.DLH 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, this is a biased confused mess that you have barfed out here on the page. Great job.--Filll 04:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA4. Is the length reasonable and is it focused

message: The following discussion now moved to this talk page, as it's irrelevant to the FAR per se.  If people think it should be on Talk:Intelligent design instead, feel free to move it there.  Thanks. ... Kenosis 18:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am moving it to Talk:Intelligent design accordingly. Thanks--Filll 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Experiment, made more explicit