Talk:History of Animals/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) 13:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead
OK

Context
OK

Approach

 * To split hairs a bit, the example given of all animals with lungs having red blood does not take into account the Pulmonata &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * One would expect Aristotle to avoid a logical fallacy. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Contents
OK for GA. This could be usefully expanded for FA &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Observations
OK

Apparent errors
OK

Translations
OK as far as I could check. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Influence
OK as far as I was able to check references.

Conclusion
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 and all the other editors who made positive contributions over the years. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)