Talk:Civic Biology

Untitled

I added the POV tag. This article is apparently part of a Creationist attempt to question the Scopes Trial. This article was created at the same time as a large push of these exact quotes through politically conservative blogs. These quotes were selected in an attempt to discredit evolution even though they are quite irrelevant even in this effort.

I question whether cherry picked quotes of a textbook from 100 years ago are worthy of Wikipedia. Cherry picked quotes as part of a political propaganda effort are clearly inappropriate.

I don't understand your addition of the tag and then its removal. I agree with its being there. But the section on the second edition does contain useful information on retention of eugenics combined with the removal of evolution. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Review notes: It might be better to move the excerpts into their own section and add quotation marks. None of the links in the reference section work. Are there alternative urls? The last sentence of Eugenics is a bit confusing; citing the exact page and/ or rephrasing would clear that up. There last few sentences of Legacy almost seem contradicting with no heavy influence vs being forced to differentiate and defend material.

Minor Stuff: In Development and Publication it should be "he obtained his doctorate." Moving alma mater to before the name of the high school might flow better.

Additions seem neutral and tie in social context well, providing good background for understanding. :) CaldDalA (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Review:

“In the first edition of Civic Biology, Hunter discusses these ideas on one page of the 432 page textbook.” I am not sure I understand the impact of this sentence in your eugenics paragraph. Do you mean that the eugenics discussion was only a minor part of the textbook?

Your controversy paragraph is a little hard to follow and could maybe use some reorganization. “Once evolution began being taught in high schools, controversy over Darwin’s theories developed.” This sentence is a little awkward where it is. Maybe rephrase as “Controversy over Darwin’s theories developed once high schools started teaching evolution” and move it to after “This movement towards socially applicable biology was coupled with national efforts towards mandatory public education.” The last sentence also seems to repeat what the paragraph already says.

“During the 1970s, it was believed that pressure from Christian fundamentalists after the Scopes Trial forced biology textbook authors to limit the discussion of evolution. Now scholars believe that textbook authors worked to develop biological curricula that differentiated and defended its content, in an attempt to reduce the influence of religious fundamentalism on the biological sciences.” These two sentences are not as relevant to your legacy paragraph as the rest. I think you should either develop them more or get rid of them.

Overall, your additions really improve the article! Claire.ren (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

In general, the additions appear neutral and add an interesting social component to the article. The vocabulary seemed appropriate given the polarizing opinions and the trial. The contribution is well thought out and well cited. No changes to suggest, seems like a great expansion to me! CaldDalA (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC) The only thing I might add is that the word "crafted" was used a few times and seemed to lean one way or another, but nothing major. CaldDalA (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review: Hi Anita, great article! I agree with the above reviews regarding your expansion, as I think that not only did you add a lot of great information to the page, but that the particular language that you used to convey said information is both clear and neutral, an aesthetic that is necessary in any good wikipedia page. If there's any sort of criticisms I would suggest, it would be some minor reorganization. I think you could put the "Shifts in Science Education" after your section on "Cultural Context," as I think the information found in both "Cultural Context" and "Shifts in Science Education" provides a pretty good lead-in to your section on the Scopes Trial. I also wonder if it would be better to put your "Legacy" section last in the article, given that these sections are usually framed as the broader implications of the subject, and thus are usually the last topic tackled on any given subject. However, the current position of your "Legacy" still seems to work, so perhaps this is only my own personal preference talking here. Additionally, you have a few places within the article that I think need additional citations to justify their veracity. I have marked them with a "citation needed," so feel free to go over them and fill in the requisite references needed. Other than that, nice job! Philibenl (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anitapershad. Peer reviewers: CaldDalA, Claire.ren, Philibenl, Sonam jindal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)