Talk:Clare Palmer/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 21:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

First read through

 * Did she get her D.Phil. in the same year as her bachelor's? That's not clear.
 * A DPhil is a kind of doctorate; it is the DPhil which is referred to a few lines down as having been completed in 1993. Would you like me to clarify this? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. Until you explained it, I wasn't entirely sure that was the same degree. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked slightly. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There seems to be almost too much emphasis on what she authored individually. If it's listed without a co-author, does the article additionally need to state that she solely authored it?
 * I'm afraid I am not sure that I understand this question; could you rephrase? The focus is on her two monographs; Environmental Ethics is more of a textbook, and Companion Animal Ethics is not un-textbook-like, and was coauthored with several others (not just Sandoe and Corr; others contributed to individual chapters). Additionally, it has yet to receive any extensive coverage in third-party sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "In 1997, she published her first[1] sole-authored book" How does 'sole authored' change things or enhance communication?  In the way the article is currently organized, it appears that this is the first book she's either authored or co-authored (vs. edited), and so it seems redundant to me.  A couple sentences later, we have "That same year, she published the sole-authored Environmental Ethics and Process Thinking"  Again, I have yet to run across her co-authoring a book, so I'm not sure the inline sole-authored helps understanding there, either. Would it hurt anything to lose either or both?  I think it would improve readability a tad. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dropped! Josh Milburn (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "She acknowledges that humans have a prima facie duty not to harm any animal." I don't think 'acknowledges' is NPOV in this context--at least not without additional explanation of which group holds this view as a default.  Perhaps 'She postulates' or 'Beginning from the assumption that...' or something like that.
 * Yes, a fair comment. I've adjusted this. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, that works fine. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Overall, pretty good prose, although it's really tough to discuss complex concepts using straightforward writing. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sincere thanks for the review. I will aim to find time to respond to this in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that talking about these ideas in summary form can be difficult; it can be tricky for me to pitch this material. If there are particular passages you found difficult, do feel free to identify them, and I will do my best to smooth them out. Thanks again for taking up the review. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the tweaks and the follow-up questions. My replies inline above. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, again, for taking the time to review this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)