Talk:An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) 00:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Hi J Milburn, just a note to say that I'm enjoying reading this. I've posted some suggestions and I'll continue with the review tomorrow. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi- I'm glad you were willing to take this up, despite our past disagreements. I know this is an area in which you have considerable expertise. J Milburn (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. Just as a suggestion, I did a quick copy edit of the first few sections (I stress that it was a quick one, so if I left typos and other errors, I apologize). I also included section headings to see what that would look like, then self-reverted. I wrote "concluding chapter" for the final heading, but intended to change that to "conclusion."


 * I wonder if these subheads would makes it easier for the reader to navigate the positions. You might feel it's too scattered looking. It's up to you; the article is fine either way. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A question about this: "He closes the book by claiming that, if what he has said is right, treatment of animals should actually be considered one of the most pressing political questions today." Can you make clearer what he means by this? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked this; hopefully it's clearer?

Ok, I think everything you raised has been fixed (apart from the "radical" point, which I hope I have explained). I've also expanded the lead a little and added a picture of Carol Adams. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Those changes look good, and the article is certainly fine for GA, so I'll add shortly that it has passed. Thanks for writing it. I enjoyed reading through it.


 * Minor quibble: you changed to first, second ... but in reception, it's firstly.


 * Not so minor: I'm still unclear about: "He closes by arguing that, if the book's claims are correct, treatment of animals should be considered one of the most pressing political questions today." What claims does he make that mean treatment of animals is one of the most pressing political questions? It's a big claim, and it isn't obvious to me having read through the article what he's referring to. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review- I've made the first fix, and will look into the second soon. I'm working on an article on Cochrane's second book, after which I'll look into beefing out his own article. As an aside, you may be interested to know that I chatted to Rob Garner about Wikipedia, and he said he's generally very impressed with our coverage of animal rights issues, and even tried to cite some articles in his work once (until an editor told him to take it out). I know you're at least partially responsible for a lot of those articles! J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for not replying to this, but I only just saw it. That's interesting what you say about Garner. I'm in the process of reading Cochrane's second book, by the way, so if you ever want to ping me for some input I'd be very interested. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)