"My main point is not that there needs to be more referenced content added from a positive point of view, just that the entire article seems to be told from the perspective of someone whose main motivation is to discredit Conservapedia.  This is coming from someone who hasn't worked on the article and is reading it for the first time.  The tone of the article is basically, ""hey, look how stupid these people are, they think kangaroos came from Noah's Ark!  Here's another example of how stupid these people are!""  I can't say I don't disagree with you, but I believe that an encylopedia entry should present the facts and let the reader decide if Conservapedia is stupid or not.  It's hard to come up with specific suggestions to make this happen, since the tone is pervasive throughout the entire article.  However, it is possible that the subject matter does not provide the possibility for fixing this, and furthermore, judging from the reactions of the editors of this article, I suggest you renominate the article for Good Article status and get a second opinion.   

 "