Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!

Talk:McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


As soon as I get a quick proofread for typos done I will return the bronze, this deserves at least that. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As I read, I am convinced that after cleaning up the odd typos, this should be gold. That needs input from others though. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know who kept re-bronzing this and ignoring my comments, but at my current point in reading and fixing typos (which seem to be vanishingly small by the middle of the article), I am convinced that this is at least silver material. Probably gold, but that takes, as I said above, input of others. It's a long read, but with the typos gone you can just skim if you want. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
You see that button that says Fossil record..? Mark Antony (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and I don't know who you are or why you were doing it. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


So, bronze or silver? Arguments please. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 12:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Article topic is directly relevant to and worthy of RW's mission (i.e., potential upgrading to cover story would be uncontroversial). - CHECK!
  • Article should not contain repetitive content or contain repetitive content or repetitive content. - CHECK! CHECK! CHECK!
  • Article is almost fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories. - not quite there yet.
  • Article is illustrated appropriately. - Nothing as of right now.
  • Article is free of blatant speling and grammar error's. - CZECH!

So in may estimation it's not quite silver material yet. I also find it over-wordy, with stuff about who the attorneys were etc, which adds content but not especially useful content. OK that last bit isn't in the criteria for a silver rating but I thought it worth mentioning. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 12:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am totally for golding this. It is an astounding wonderful article now that some typos are fixed. All we have to do is write a synopsis. I note someone put it back to bronze. It is silver no doubt. Are there any things lacking to make it gold? ħumanUser talk:Human 07:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Three years late, and I'm a newbie here, but I would like to see some more information regarding the missing defendants' transcripts. Why are they missing, how was it discovered they were missing, etc. At the very least an in-line reference about them where we could go for more info on the subject. Thanos6 (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)