Talk:Man After Man/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Though reviews of the book were generally positive, they critiqued the science aspect of the book in a greater extent than in its predecessors - I think the verb you want here is "criticised" not "critiqued"
Instead of the field guide-esque format of Dixon's previous books,- possibly a little informal "field guide-like,"?
The New Dinosaurs, meanwhile, had a focus on the science of zoogeography- why not just, "The New Dinosaurs, meanwhile, focussed the science of zoogeography"
NB: clear of copyvio
- All fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
- Prose quality:
- just a couple of minor issues above - Manual of Style compliance:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
- References to sources:
- Citations to reliable sources, where required:
- No original research:
3. Broad in coverage?:
- Major aspects:
- Focused: - some fine-tuning of content needed
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
- Fair representation without bias:
5. Reasonably stable?
- No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
- Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall: