This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article was accepted on 3 March 2015 by reviewer Huon (talk·contribs).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
I asked for clarification on what the rejected message meant, and I got back this clarification. My last question, to the best of my knowledge, was not answered by the reviewer, so I am copying the history link here instead of the text. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried the online chat function, and got the suggestion to trim the contents section and expand the reception section, so that the contents section is shorter than the reception section. (Which is really hard, because it's a tough book.) I can't really use the reviews in the contents section, because the reviews don't really focus on what the book is about as much as what the reviewers thought of the book. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
