Talk:Before the Dawn (Wade book)/GA1

GA Review
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 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)