Talk:Before the Dawn (Wade book)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 15:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

On first pass, this looks strong to me, and almost everything in the list below should be easily fixable. The article summarizes the book well for someone (me) who hasn't read it, and the criticism section seems balanced. The background section seems a little short on sources that discuss Wade's work; I'll do a Google search today or tomorrow to see if more can be turned up. Thanks very much for your work on this article so far, and I look forward to your responses!

• "At the beginning of each chapter, a contextually relevant quote from either Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man or On the Origin of Species is given. " -- this seems like a detail not really needed in a concise summary
• "Some of them, due to a global climate between 5 and 10 million years ago" --should this be "a global climate change"? Otherwise, it should probably be "the global climate" instead of "a".
• The "background" section does a good job of laying out the issues, but I'm concerned that it includes some SYNTH material, combining a number of statements from various sources instead of drawing on other secondary sources that explicitly compare and contrast them. The Gould interview doesn't mention Wade, for example, and it would help to have a secondary source that explicitly connects Before the Dawn with The 10,000 Year Explosion. Similarly, I'm not sure there's any reason to bring Wade's NYT articles into this unless other authors have connected them with the book. Is it possible to reduce this section to only articles that talk about Wade and his work?
• Similarly, it would be good to include a bit in the background section about the origins of the book (i.e., how he got the idea for it), which Wade discusses in the already-cited interview. Another block quote would probably exceed the bounds of fair use, but this could be summarized.
• "He carefully avoids" -- "carefully" seems like a small bit of editorial judgement here, and doesn't seem needed anyway.
• "A number of influential scientists and writers wrote praise to Wade directly, and much of it appears on the cover of the book. " -- "influential" is some minor peacocking here; I'd suggest that this sentence just be cut.
• "boldly proclaimed" -- "boldly" seems like another small, unneeded bit of editorializing (was it really "bold"?)
• "It was published in 2006 by the Penguin Group. In 2007, it won the Science in Society Journalism Award from the National Association of Science Writers" --important info in the lead should also be in the body per WP:LEAD -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article! They are all fair suggestions, and I will tend to them. The background section was an attempt to offer a neutral perspective on the issues surrounding the topic, but admittedly it is a bit of a synthesis. I will try to rework it by finding information on how and why the book was written, possibly drawing upon interviews ([1][2]) as well as acknowledgements in the book itself. The inclusion of the NYT articles was to show Wade's background of related work; he includes some in his book, so I'll make sure to connect those ones with the text and perhaps remove the others. Hayden120 (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: I believe that I have addressed the issues raised. The only thing that I left was the references for Wade's NYT articles, which I think are acceptable in the new context I have written (they serve as evidence of his work). What are your thoughts? Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and thorough work on this. All of the issues I noted above have been addressed. I did notice one more minor action point I wanted to propose to you (below):

• "Another positive review came from John Derbyshire, a former columnist for the National Review, who cynically declared that" -- "cynically" seems like another tiny bit of adverbial editorializing that's not needed here, and is best cut for neutrality reasons.

Thanks, easy fix! Hayden120 (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent; spotchecks against the original book and other sources show no evidence of close paraphrasing.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Describing one reviewer's comments as "cynical" is a tiny bit of editorializing, but that's easily fixed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Before the Dawn (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130103161807/http://www.nicholas-wade.com:80/before-the-dawn/ to http://www.nicholas-wade.com/before-the-dawn/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Before the Dawn (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130103161807/http://www.nicholas-wade.com:80/before-the-dawn/ to http://www.nicholas-wade.com/before-the-dawn/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Homo habilis-2.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Homo habilis-2.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)