Talk:Royal Society education chief forced out in creation row

• Comment I'm fairly sure 'Nullius in verba' wasn't published on September 17. I forget what our sourcing rule is for stuff that's not recent news. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 06:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That was the publication date for the relevant web page - I added it because it contrasts with the conduct of the society. Minor point, so I removed it because of the reviewer's copyright concerns, though it might well have been justifiable as commentary / review / fair use. Sorry if that was unclear or bad form. - Notmyopinion (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Review

Revision 694091 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 06:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: ""Take nobody's word for it", dates back to 1663, and is an expression of the determination of the Fellows to withstand the domination of authority... and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment. " - Copy/paste from http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6186 Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Is "Creation should not be taught, he said, but if it comes up, teachers should be encouraged to explain the science of evolution, and at least make sure that students understand that the word "theory" does not simply mean a hypothesis about the way things might work, but a rigorously supported system of ideas that fit with the available evidence." a quote? If so it should be in quotes. Also article lacks Categories. Comments by reviewer: Getting close to the stale mark. Also why is the Societies motto there? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 694091 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 06:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: ""Take nobody's word for it", dates back to 1663, and is an expression of the determination of the Fellows to withstand the domination of authority... and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment. " - Copy/paste from http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6186 Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Is "Creation should not be taught, he said, but if it comes up, teachers should be encouraged to explain the science of evolution, and at least make sure that students understand that the word "theory" does not simply mean a hypothesis about the way things might work, but a rigorously supported system of ideas that fit with the available evidence." a quote? If so it should be in quotes. Also article lacks Categories. Comments by reviewer: Getting close to the stale mark. Also why is the Societies motto there? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Removed problematic copyright. Worked at style of extracts from Prof's reported speech to make it less unwieldy.

I think the story is important because it concerns academic freedom and a serious educational controversy in both the UK and USA. - Notmyopinion (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Review 2

Revision 694373 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 08:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I never disagreed on the newsworthiness of this, fear not. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 694373 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 08:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I never disagreed on the newsworthiness of this, fear not. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Needs

... more cats and links ... IMO --SVTCobra 02:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)