Talk:Philosophie zoologique/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey! It is indeed fun to review your articles. Here we go:

Lead

 * Could we add a description of Lamarck? Like "French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck"?
 * Done.


 * Link evolution, inherited
 * Done.


 * Should we say "animal"? I understand that Lamarckism applies to all organisms in general and not just Animalia. We can say "organism" instead.
 * You have a point, especially with the benefit of hindsight, but all the same, he wrote exclusively about animals in his zoology book.


 * nineteenth century I guess it is better to put this in digits.
 * History articles seem to prefer words.
 * I see. That's why they are pleasant stories to read ;) Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 09:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * geologist Charles Lyell and the comparative anatomist Thomas Henry Huxley We don't usually add links for professions, do we?
 * We often do.


 * Expand the lead to cover all the portions of the article
 * Done.

Context

 * Should we link taxonomy?
 * Done.


 *  the environment (the conditions of life)  I could not understand the meaning of the bracketed phrase. I think you mean the "conditions where life exists" or the "conditions for life to exist". Could be reworded.
 * Said that Lamarck called it the conditions of life.


 *  inherited, evolutionary  Links
 * Linked.


 * changes in animals I think "animal" can be changed to "organism"
 * Again, this is a zoology book, and its scope is limited to animals.


 * in his 1809 Philosophie Zoologique, as well, later, in his There may be some unwanted and confusing commas here.
 * Done.


 *  in his Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres, (1815–1822). I think we remove either the comma or the brackets. What exactly is this work and what does the year range refer to?
 * The book was published in parts over that range of years.


 * He described his theory in his 1802...vertèbres, (1815–1822). Source?
 * The existing ref does the job.

Book

 * Say either Philosophie zoologique  or Philosophie Zoologique  throughout the article. It should match with the article title.
 * Done.


 * Species may need a link
 * Done.


 *  from influences in their environment Is "in" not a bit weird here? What sort of influences? Any example?
 * We could say "from" again, but that'd be a bit klunky.


 *  His "First Law" ; His "Second Law"  In the lead you simply said "The first law"
 * Done.


 * He gave names to a number of vestigial structures...vestiges of this organ." Source?
 * Ref added.


 * Again, do we say "Animal" or "organism"?
 * Together, Lamarck's laws would cause steady adaptation of animals to their environments I am not sure if this is correct wording. We do not say that an apple falls to the ground due to the law of gravitation; it falls due to gravity. This should perhaps be worded "Together, Lamarck's laws propose that animals would get steadily adapted to their environments".
 * Reworded.


 * You don't need a citation at the end of the quote if it already precedes the quote. This happens often in the article
 * ;-) The practice helps to reduce drive-by tagging.
 * Cool. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 09:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 *  gaps between differing kinds  Could we have a clearer wording here? I believe you mean different varieties of animals, and the gaps refer to changes brought about by evolution.
 * Done.


 * Is it possible to link "form" in its correct sense here?
 * Done.


 * living things Should it be things or beings?
 * It's a well-known phrase with clear intent.


 * Link "nervous"
 * Done, but given that this is vitalism, it's a bit flaky.


 * the mediaeval great chain of being Is the spelling wrong or did you mean something else?
 * Linked it.

Contents

 * Can you cite the book itself at the end of the first line so that it verifies the whole section?
 * Done.

Reception

 *  made little immediate effect  I think "impact" sounds better than "effect"
 * Done.


 * on his fellow zoologists, or on the public Do we need a comma?
 * Yes.


 * The historian of science What does this mean? Should it be "a" or "the"?
 * The. Linked.


 * Does the book have anything to do with Darwinism or Darwin's books? It would be an interesting comparison.
 * Yes, well worth spelling out. Said it's a forerunner, and respected by leading scientists after his death, contrasting French and non-French attitudes.
 * "Charles Darwin[1]" stands alone in one of the last lines. Incomplete job? Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 10:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed the fragment, it's handled higher up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. Two issues left. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 10:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're all done now.

Cool. The article is in a great shape now. I would be happy to promote this. Cheers, Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 11:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the careful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)