# Talk:How the Snake Lost Its Legs

"The title pays homage to Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories, but within the strict confines of science." (Early in the intro.) I think something is missing here. It says that the Homage is within the strict confines of science. I think  that homage can never be that. Is the intended meaning that the content of the book is scientifically correct? --Ettrig (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think any native English speaker would find this tricky but I'll reword it now for wider benefit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:How the Snake Lost Its Legs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 01:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


### Comments by Dunkleosteus77
Why is ref no. 3 a link to a google scholar search?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Gone, guess ref 2 is sufficient context.
The second, third, and fifth paragraphs in the Contents section needs a ref at the end
Added.
I think the Publication, illustrations section could just be titled Publications   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Done.
"As a result, 'The essay, thus, works...' " little redundant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Gone.
I did a little copyediting so I guess that's that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)