Talk:History of Animals/GA1

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]

To split hairs a bit, the example given of all animals with lungs having red blood does not take into account the Pulmonata • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 see that there has been a substantive revision dated Tue Jan 31, 2017 of ref name=Lennox (2011). I have not yet checked if this will make any difference. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

External links[edit]

What is the point of the link to Google books? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]