Talk:Man After Man/GA1

GA Review

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:

Pass or Fail: just a couple of very minor things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)