Wikipedia:External peer review/Denver Post
The Denver Post (May 2007)
[edit]- Source: Denver Post
- Date: 2007-05-01
- Title: "Grading Wikipedia", By Michael Booth
- URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20080109025645/https://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_5786064
"The Denver Post asked five Colorado scholars to review the Wikipedia entries on Islam, Bill Clinton, global warming, China and evolution."
Findings
[edit]Colorado State University's Scott Denning, the Monfort Professor of Atmospheric Science.
- "a great primer on the subject"
- "Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen"
- pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy."
- wishes Wikipedia offered better links to basic weather science.
University of Colorado history professor William Wei
- "simplistic, and in some places, even incoherent."
- "mishandled the issue of Korean independence from China"
- "and the context of the Silk Road in China's international relations."
Bob Loevy, political science professor at Colorado College and frequent writer on Bill Clinton
- thorough and unbiased, giving fair weight to both Clinton accomplishments and scandals.
- The bulk of it appeared to have been written by the Clinton Museum and Library in Little Rock, Ark.
- "a great place for a student to begin building his or her knowledge" on Clinton
Retired CU religious studies professor Frederick Denny, 40-year specialist in Islam
- "quite impressed"
- "It looks like something that might have been done by a young graduate student, or assistant professor, or two or three"
- clinical and straightforward, but not boring.
- where important translations of Arabic language or fine religious distinctions are required, Wikipedia acquits itself well.
CU biology professor Jeffrey Mitton
- "good," even if "stylistic infelicities abound."
- If a student read through the main entry and the primary links to supporting concepts, he would get a fine introduction
- first reference cited for the authoritative textbook on evolution by Douglas Futuyma, "so that is excellent, as it should be,"
- rest of the source list appropriate, and well-rounded
Response
[edit]Looks like we got lucky, since 3/5 of the articles picked are Wikipedia:Featured articles, we could hope they'd be good. China needs work, not sure what "stylistic infelicities" in Evolution are specifically, otherwise it looks like we just need to bask. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)