In the past I've argued that a lot of things on this site don't really qualify much as cryptids, but if categorized properly, I have revoked opinions that such articles shouldn't be here. However, even with the broad range for what can be on this wiki, I think this wiki is far to unprofessional in it's style and writing.
I have a particular article as example to demostrate me point: the Behemoth article. Just ten minutes ago I edited the following paragraph, with the one on top being the original, and the second the current version:
"Some people claim that the Behemoth was a hippo, rhino or elephant, but that does not make much sense since hippos, rhinos and elephants do not have tails like cedars. Their tails are quite small. Many Christians and theorists believe this could be describing a sauropod such as the Apatosaurus or an unknown species of small sauropod."
"Some people argue that the Behemoth was a hippo, rhino or elephant, but others disagree, pointing out that hippos, rhinos and elephants do not have "tails like cedars" as described, having relatively small tails. Some creationists* and theorists believe this could be describing a type of sauropod dinosaur, thought to have been extinct."
Notice how the second one is encyclopedic. The original has the statement: "but that does not make much sense". That is completely and utterly un-encyclopeadic, which is part of what a wiki really should be. The other is objective, and talks in a more professional manner. See what I mean?
I see this kind of sloppy, un-professional writing on far to many articles on this wiki, and I suggest we change that fact. Of course, if you guys disagree, I'm not in the position to have the right to change things so drastically against the will of this community, hence why I make this blogpost instead of doing what I want without consent.
,*Creationists is far closer to what the point is trying to make than christian. Hell, "young earth creationist" is probably an even better term.