Talk:Ontogeny and Phylogeny
 | Ontogeny and Phylogeny has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 30, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:Ontogeny1977.jpg
edit
Image:Ontogeny1977.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontogeny and Phylogeny (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 16:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks as always for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Comments
- "changes in the timing of embryonic development" I got confused reading this, perhaps put it in parentheses.
- Done.
- "that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" as this is quite technical, is there any chance of a footnote explaining it in non-expert terms?
- Added.
- (Aside: is there any reason the article title needs (book) as a disambiguator? There is no Ontogeny and Phylogeny article, after all)
- Avoids confusion with "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"; if you feel that's not a worry then we can move the article after this GAN is completed.
- I don't think that's confusing so I would recommend a move after this GAN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Avoids confusion with "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"; if you feel that's not a worry then we can move the article after this GAN is completed.
- "This later work was published..." unref sentence.
- Added ref.
- "fetalisation theory" any link, explanation? And I assume we're now in USEng or that would be foetalisation?
- Used -z- as that's how Bolk's work is described. Not sure any better link than Louis Bolk is available.
- "n Paleobiology, " that links to the science, not some kind of publication.
- Fixed.
- Same in the accompanying reference.
- Fixed.
- "noted that 2 years earlier" two
- Fixed.
- " ad- vanced" copy/paste issue? Fix and check others.
- Made 2 fixes.
- "excellently illustrated with often surprising examples, " this should be either attributed, quoted or neutralised in tone.
- Attributed.
- Ref 4 (along with the note above about the Paleobiology link) needs access-date and pref
format=pdf
- Formatted, used jstor as source.
- "Book preview - Google Books" en-dash.
- Fixed.
That's it for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)