Talk:Answers Research Journal
 | Answers Research Journal is currently a Magazines and print journalism good article nominee. Nominated by Dr. Swag Lord (talk) at 19:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.
Short description: Creation science journal |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Answers Research Journal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | A fact from Answers Research Journal appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 June 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 17:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- ... that HIV has its origins in the Fall, according to one journal? Source: [1]
- Reviewed: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/George_Kunkel_(theatre_manager)
- Comment: If preferred, the 'according to the journal' clause can be in the beginning.
Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
LGTM, tho I don't love the hook. Given that this is Psuedoscience territory, it might be best to err on the side of being a bit verbose.
How about ALT 1: ... that according to one creationist journal, HIV has its origins in the Fall?
Thoughts Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d? Sohom (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sohom Datta, Alt1 looks good to me! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Approved, per above. Sohom (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Can I offer an even more direct alternative hook? And Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, if you're not feeling this, you can strike it. Rjjiii (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that the inaugural article of one creationist journal claims that HIV goes back to the biblical Fall?
- I prefer the Alt1 hook still. Alt2 just seems a bit wordy. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Answers Research Journal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) 19:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) 14:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I can review this. Initial indications are that it meets GA, but I will do more analysis this week. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954, thank you very much for taking up this review. If you have feedback for me, I most likely won’t be able to respond until July 8th. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- A basic point: I think the article is too aggressive in places and includes not-neutral words which are not needed, and might be considered as OR. A couple of examples with words that could be removed are:
- A 2009 article
spuriouslyproposes - His thesis,
incorrectly
- A 2009 article
- In both cases it could be argued that a source is needed for the word I have stricken out. Those were the most obvious, please go through and check, letting the sourced material tell the story -- which is clearly very strong. Please let me know when you are done Ldm1954 (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- A basic point: I think the article is too aggressive in places and includes not-neutral words which are not needed, and might be considered as OR. A couple of examples with words that could be removed are: