Talk:History of Animals/GA1

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Chiswick Chap in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) 13:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I approached with some trepidation, as I have little experience in book topics, but it was so long on the nominations list I felt someone had to do it, so I did it. It was more entertaining than I expected, and not as difficult. Having access to the translation online was essential. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply


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.
  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. No obvious discrepancies. Mixture of templated and manually formatted OK by GA criteria
  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). All that I have checked are good. Some are not accessible, but do not appear to be a problem.
  2c. it contains no original research. None that I could find. Not all references accessible to me.
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Not able to find any.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. This could be usefully expanded to provide a bit more detail on the scope of the books and chapters, but I think it is good enough for GA. I would suggest this as a focus for improvement for FA.
  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.
  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.

Comments by section

edit

Lead

edit

OK

Context

edit

OK

Book

edit
Approach
edit
Something that Aristotle could not have known, however. He thought snails did not have blood, see the table in Aristotle's biology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
That is my point. Snails have lungs of a kind but do not have red blood, yet this section states Here one can rightly conclude that if something has lungs, it has red blood;. It appears to me that this conclusion is not drawn by Aristotle, but is an example used by the authors to illustrate that Aristotle does not make this error. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I see what you mean. The intention was not to draw any such conclusion about the world, but to say that in A's reasoning, having lungs implies having blood: the point of the section is to give an idea of A's approach to evidence. Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
One would expect Aristotle to avoid a logical fallacy. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Contents
edit

OK for GA. This could be usefully expanded for FA • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Observations
edit

OK

Apparent errors
edit

OK

Translations
edit

OK as far as I could check. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Influence

edit

OK as far as I was able to check references.

Notes

edit

OK

References

edit
I doubt it; we only use SEP for the Approach (and a mention in the Context), and these things aren't controversial or likely to have been changed between SEP versions; also easily substituted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
edit
Good point, replaced it with a free version at Archive.org. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Conclusion

edit

All done. I find the article complies with all GA criteria as far as I have been able to check, and have no reason to suspect that the parts I couldn't check do not comply. so promoting to GA. Well done Chiswick Chap and all the other editors who made positive contributions over the years. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply