Talk:Human eye color: Difference between revisions
imported>Mary Ash (Original source of article link) |
imported>Gareth Leng |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== Original source == | == Original source == | ||
The original source of this article is: [ https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Eye_color Eye Color] I have removed the images as they've not been imported to Citizendium.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 04:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC) | The original source of this article is: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Eye_color Eye Color] I have removed the images as they've not been imported to Citizendium.[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 04:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
Thanks for bringing this over as an experiment. Like many articles on Wikipedia, it looks quite good at first - until you start to read it closely, when it begins to fall apart. It's over-referenced, and the quality and selection of references is weak. I remember the acid comments of a book reviewer once ("the author uses references like a dog uses a lamp post, to mark rather than to illuminate"). The formatting style is inconsistent.The detail is odd and illogical, and there are many minor errors of fact. The science isn't really explained, facts are mentioned as though they explain something, but the explanation isn't given. There are many interesting things to say about the science and genetics of eye color, but the article somehow manages to avoid saying any of them. The writing style is disjointed. | |||
I think the same is true of many articles in Wikipedia - it's not a reason not to import them or use them as a base, but it's a good reason to be very selective, and choose articles you're really interested in and really want to work on and change. It's quite a lot of work to clean up these articles, a lot more to check them carefully, and then they may really just need scrapping. This one is rescuable, the import is somewhere to start from for a total rewrite. As it is, no, I wouldn't give it house room. The errors that I see (and I'm no expert) make me trust almost none of it.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:01, 25 November 2010
Original source
The original source of this article is: Eye Color I have removed the images as they've not been imported to Citizendium.Mary Ash 04:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this over as an experiment. Like many articles on Wikipedia, it looks quite good at first - until you start to read it closely, when it begins to fall apart. It's over-referenced, and the quality and selection of references is weak. I remember the acid comments of a book reviewer once ("the author uses references like a dog uses a lamp post, to mark rather than to illuminate"). The formatting style is inconsistent.The detail is odd and illogical, and there are many minor errors of fact. The science isn't really explained, facts are mentioned as though they explain something, but the explanation isn't given. There are many interesting things to say about the science and genetics of eye color, but the article somehow manages to avoid saying any of them. The writing style is disjointed.
I think the same is true of many articles in Wikipedia - it's not a reason not to import them or use them as a base, but it's a good reason to be very selective, and choose articles you're really interested in and really want to work on and change. It's quite a lot of work to clean up these articles, a lot more to check them carefully, and then they may really just need scrapping. This one is rescuable, the import is somewhere to start from for a total rewrite. As it is, no, I wouldn't give it house room. The errors that I see (and I'm no expert) make me trust almost none of it.Gareth Leng 11:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)