Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Apokryltaros (talk | contribs) at 16:52, 22 October 2007 (rvt squonking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Level of support for evolution was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 21, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Evolutionary biology Unassessed

This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1 2

are there any pro-science editors here?

Imbrella has still failed to raise any specific issues with this article, so I have moved this thread to her talkpage (if you want to debate her further, then do so there). An article's talkpage is a forum for the discussion of improvements to the article, not a soapbox for vague complaints and rants. Hrafn_Stalk 12:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I venture that we shun Imbrella - unless he/she brings up a valid point, just ignore it. I've wasted enough time here. Imbrella - if you bring up a point we consider worth addressing, we will address it. Otherwise, consider a complete lack of response to your comment a consensus that your suggestion has no merit. We all monitor these pages, so we're all reading your comments, and we have all read what you've written to date. And to date, consensus is a complete lack of merit to your contributions. Go elsewhere. Edit. Come back and read. If you still feel the need to post, do so in an appropriate manner. WLU 14:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

this cite #91 goes no where

In Kansas, there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the biotech industry.

 +  
 + And this resource is erroneous. Imbrella 14:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you have sources that dont even exist. Imbrella 14:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

??? It goes here . ScienceApologist 14:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Numerous copies of the article in this citation do in fact exist. The link in question was semi-broken (in that the portal it led to would not give easy access to the article), so I relinked it to a still-viable copy. No real issue -- the sort of thing that real editors handle all the time, without making a song and dance on the talkpage about it. Hrafn_Stalk 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the complaints. Frankly, they are baseless.--Filll 15:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd reply, but I'm still shunning. I've added some citation templates, and made a wording change in that section. WLU 15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Unassessed Evolutionary biology articles
• Unknown-importance Evolutionary biology articles
• WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles