Talk:Liber physiognomiae/GA1

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

I'll take this on. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * One quick question: I'd have expected a section on what critics and scholars thought of the book, and how influential it was, whether contemporaries or moderns (probably both, actually). For instance, see De Materia Medica. Is there some good reason not to have such a section here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Most of the sources I've found mention that the book was a hit and that people really dug it, but that's all that I can find. (And I've dug through Google Books, JSTOR, and BrillOnline Reference Works, among others.) I'm going to re-locate Thorndike's 1965 book to see if there's anything there. If so, I'll try to expand the final section, if that works for you.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be just right.
 * Good news! I found a source explaining why the book was important. I've added the source and will add the info tomorrow.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   20:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How do these changes look?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   14:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Greatly improved, thank you. What does "most overarching change" mean, however? I can't made head nor tail of it. Might be best to paraphrase it.
 * The author was kind of a pain in the butt to parse at time, which is one reason I quote him here; didn't want to get what he meant wrong! How about this half-paraphrase then?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   19:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * His use of English was Bush-rivalling. I think we're all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Minor details

 * The caption to the lead image makes it look as if Scot lived and copied manuscripts in the 16th century.
 * I have tried to make this clearer.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "(i.e. in regards to genus and species)" makes it look as if Scot was aware of modern taxonomy's concepts of genus and species, which he obviously was not. The wikilinks must go, and in place of them a brief note on what he intended by these terms is needed: perhaps with links to some medieval article.
 * I have now added a footnote explaining this.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Way better, many thanks.


 * Please gloss authors when you introduce them, e.g. 'the historian Charles Homer Haskins'.
 * I will get on this.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I got 'em.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Summary
This is now a well-polished article and I'm happy to award it a deserved GA. If you're going further to FAC, the best of luck. I do think Scot hedged his bets rather about dreams! And I'd encourage you to review an article or two from the GA nominations list yourself. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)