# Talk:After Man

Is this section needed? If the author had found them important he would have given them a description. Since he didn't, they're not. I like the idea that the animals from the book are listed (since I've lost my copy) but this is overkill. -- Nashville Monkey 23:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read the book future evolution, it is most definitely not another book on the subject. The book never talks about the world in the future, it just labels the survivors of the extinction and then goes on and on about how the whole world is doomed and all the large mammals will die and no more will evolve to replace them. The only glimpses of a possible future we get is a two page excerpt that is supposed to sound like it is from H.G. Wells' Time Machine and a couple of pictures.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 

Ok, for all who want to know, the list of animals seemed to be much too long, and made the page very hard to wade through.  Therefore, I decided to Be Bold and compact it, sendin the full version to List of animals from "After Man: A Zoology of the Future".  Please do not revert without discussing here first.
Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
is the list even necessary anymore after we added the link?--50.195.51.9 (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That article was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals from After Man: A Zoology of the Future. Also it's easier to reference.--Auric 02:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence the online book is not violation copyright law? The website doesn't seem as if it was given permission from the author to host the book, and the images of the bottom don't seem legally obtained either. I'm sending an email to the author, but for now I'll assume both the references and the images are violations of copyright law and delete them as was done in The New Dinosaurs: An Alternate Evolution's page. Nlesbirel (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The book has been out of print for quite some time now, but i'm not totally familiar with how copyright laws involving out-of-print books work. 50.195.51.9 (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe it lasts 70 years unless under very specific circumstances. As I've said I have tried contacting the author for permission, but he has not responded. I'd rather be safe than sorry, and until evidence can be proven otherwise I'll keep the link to the online book off this page and assume it violates copyright law. Nlesbirel (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Wesley J M: I saw that you had reverted many of my recent changes. Species common names should be in lower case in compliance with the Manual of Style for Wikipedia as expressed at MOS:LIFE. Also you may be thinking that that should be capitalized as headings, but that is not Wikipedia's style either as described at MOS:HEAD. Why did you do that? Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:After Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I loved this book when i was a kid! I will make straightforward changes as I go and jot queries below. Please revert if I accidentally change the meaning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this! Loved this book as well :)
I think that up the top of the Summary section, you need to state that it is a pretend/quasi guide-book or something that impresses that it is a pseudo-factual work somehow.
Sure. It now begins with "After Man explores an imagined future Earth, set 50 million years from the present". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd link biome, binomial name, evolution.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd mention the "save the whales" badge inspired the porpin. I like the idea of adding what inspires people's specific ideas.
Seems I completely missed that anecdote, added it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Cox's review was extremely negative, but subsequent reviews were highly positive.  - do we have any idea why Cox was so negative?
The article doesn't specify and I think the original review could be hard to track down since it was on a radio show? I'll look around and see if I can find something. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you see if anyone else mentioned it as their inspiration for something?
I'll look around and add anything I can find. Naish's article implies the book inspired parts of the show Primeval but I don't think that can be added without confirmation from anyone involved with Primeval itself. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That's just about everything I can find in terms of inspiration. Obviously there are countless more examples within personal art projects littered across the internet but those can't really be cited without a seconday source and the article already specifies that the book inspired and essentially founded the "speculative evolution community". I did add some more details on the 2018 edition, that the book was translated into a number of languages, and that there was a 1987 exhibition based on the book. I also split "legacy" into "legacy" and "adaptations". It would be great to find some original 1981/1982 reviews of the book but I haven't found any. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There was some pretty interesting stuff you just found! The 1957 German guy sounds interesting too! Anyway all good now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Otherwise, a pretty sound article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:  - just waiting to see if you find anything else...
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)