"

GA review process

Well, the review process was instructive, as were the comments regarding how to improve the article. I had no idea that it was wrong to approach individual editors to comment (as I explained above it was to ""get the ball rolling"" – naivety on my part, I'm afraid). I also think that Pyrotec's choice of language here (""This review looks very much like a ""favour"" being granted to the article's nominator by a co-conspirator"") is very regrettable – perhaps he would like to retract it, look again at the six editors I asked to review the article (I chose a cross-section of editors experienced in CC pages but who had not made a contribution here – also explained above), and admit that he jumped to conclusions. Another example of why good faith is so important. Anyway in future, I'll just make a general post on the talk page about GA nominations. 
From the comments re: the article itself it's clear that the article needs work in certain areas. Specifically:
MOS issues, esp. with regard to the synopsis
Restructuring of criticism section and dealing with ""stubby paragraphs""
Consistency in spelling 
Overlong sentences in synopsis (although Guetterda's criticism ""the synopsis is written in a narrative form - x happened, then the author introduced y, then z happened - which is inappropriate for the synopsis of a book of this form"" may be misplaced as the book is a chronological account of this subject) 
Delingpole's review quoted in the lead but not the main body
 Further critical review needed/possible problems with tone
 Needs more images

That should be enough to be getting along with)) I don't regard the rejection as a setback, but merely a blip on the road to getting The Real Global Warming Disaster to GA status one day, in strict compliance with WP guidelines, though I still have reservations about how wise it was to choose a book from this subject area. Anyway it is a terrific learning experience. Thanks to all who shared their opinions.   "