Wikipedia:Peer review/List of atheists/archive1

List of atheists edit

I would like comments on what needs to be done to get this article in shape for nomination as a featured list. In particular, please comment on completeness, quality of references, and the clarity and soundness of inclusion criteria. Nick Graves 00:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 18:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too happy with the lead seems to be examining the list rather stating whats it about (This is list is not this or that etc.) It feels quite unecyclopedic. - Tutmosis 02:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tutmosis, the intro has changed since your original comment. If this hasn't answered your criticism, pls let us know specifics. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some suggestions - Colin°^Talk 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your lead needs to be better defined and expanded. The claim that this includes "only those whose atheism has been relevant in their public life or works" doesn't stand up to examination. For example, Alexander McQueen, the famous atheist fashion designer - I think not. All Wikipedia lists of people only include notable people. If you decide to include people who are principly notable for their atheims, then you are probably left with just the Activists section and the list doesn't justify its own article, never mind FL. If you expand to include all notable people who have identified themselves as atheists (which I think this list is) then you have a longer but managable list. Notable=wikipedia article as a rule of thumb.

Ditto response to Tutmosis. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to decide whether to include the quote in the list-body or in the footnotes. I'd vote for the footnotes and leave the body text to concentrate on why they were famous/notable and (if possible) why their atheism is/was notable.

Tend to agree with Colin on this point. Some of the entries have quotes that I think work well in the list-body, others belong in the footnotes. I'll make my stab at editing the list along these lines and see what others think. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your footnotes aren't up to featured standard. I strongly recommend you investigate the {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, etc templates and try to include the publisher, date, author, accessdate, ISBN, and title fields.

We need greater standardisation in footnotes. I'll have a go and hopefully others can chip in... Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The birth/death should use an ndash for the closed dates and mdash for the open (living) dates.

This is fixed. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are inconsistent regarding the punctuation between the dates and the sentence for each person.

This is fixed. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standard of references varies widely. Clearly a direct quote in an identified reliable source is best. The opposite is something like [1] or [2] where the author has retrospectively tried to guess someone's religious belief. Those sites sometimes put "an atheist" in quotes as though they are quoting some text, but if they don't identify the text, then it is worthless. A site that isn't impartial and doesn't identify its sources should be ignored completely. Build your list on reliable foundations. You must be able to trace the quote/statement back to something that has been editorially reviewed by an unbiased person - ideally in (paper) print.

I believe Nick has addressed this. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't include external links for cites that are references. Don't include blogs or NNDB. There is rarely any purpose in a "List of" article having external links.
Don't mention "see also" if you have already wikilinked the term. The "List of people" isn't really relevant.
The Woody Allen picture has an unconfirmed licence status.

This is removed. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly move Richard Dawkins up to the top ~~left~~right as "poster boy" for atheism.

See my third comment below. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "List of atheists" article now reads well, is rigorously documented (far beyond any print encyclopedia), is attractively illustrated, and will be of interest to many readers. logologist|Talk 07:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--while it needs work this article is very comprehensive and is pleasing to the eye. IMO I would mix up the images a bit, for example having some on the left and some on the right, but it is fine either way. Cheers. — Seadog ^♪ 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it works well with the images on the right but not too fussed either. Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a very good-looking and well-documented article now after conserted effort by a number of people. Aside from the responses above, my own observations are:

The TOC template appears to be causing the paragraph following to indent, at least in my browser. Does this affect anyone else?
I note we have Carlin and Roddenberry still in the list with ^{[citation needed]} tags. I'm happy to leave them there for a bit to see if we can't locate proper sources but if we want this as a Featured List we either need the citations or their entries should be removed.
We seem to have made Shelley our 'poster boy', with a bigger pic and his full name plus an opus in the caption. I don't think we need a poster boy, either Shelley or Dawkins, but should treat each pictured atheist the same, similar size, surname and nothing else. If we were to have a pic in the intro, I'd suggest a book cover, say The Necessity of Atheism or another key tract. Thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a lead picture is useful for when the list gets featured and appears in summary form. This isn't a list of books so a picture of a book isn't relevant. The current layout of pictures combined with the large number of them, means that they don't align with where the person is mentioned. I suggest pruning the picture list, changing the layout and/or using <br style="clear:both;"> at the end of some sections (and the lead) to avoid the pictures and TOC flowing into the next section. Colin°^Talk 13:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no argument re. an FL summary, we'd need a pic for that and a book cover obviously isn't relevant there. I was looking at in terms of the article as a whole, where the intro discusses inclusion criteria and cites a number of works; I don't see the need for a poster boy there and would also stick with the recommendation that all images should have similarly-detailed captions, either the surname only or the full name and a brief blurb. I'll have ago with that style you mentioned when I get the chance. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I think ought to be done:
- Prune and alternate pictures left and right, as already suggested. I think only those whose atheism has been especially relevant in their public lives ought to be pictured.
- Delete (or reliably source) a lot of the entries that have dubious sources. A lot of the chaff is gone, but I think some unattributed quotes online are being referenced, for instance.
- Delete entries that rely on the earlier and less rigorous inclusion criteria. Before, it was enough for someone to just say they didn't believe in God. Now, someone must have identified themselves using the word atheist, or been identified by a reliable source as such, or fit the narrowest definition.
- Properly format the references for the remaining entries, following the guidelines Colin mentioned above. This will take a while.
- Vigilance on the part of regular contributors to make sure that new entries have proper references or are deleted. This will maintain the list quality and help stabilize it. Stability is necessary for featured list status. Nick Graves 06:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]