# Talk:Ontogeny and Phylogeny

Image:Ontogeny1977.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontogeny and Phylogeny (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 16:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks as always for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Comments

"changes in the timing of embryonic development" I got confused reading this, perhaps put it in parentheses.
Done.
"that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" as this is quite technical, is there any chance of a footnote explaining it in non-expert terms?
Added.
(Aside: is there any reason the article title needs (book) as a disambiguator?  There is no Ontogeny and Phylogeny article, after all)
Avoids confusion with "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"; if you feel that's not a worry then we can move the article after this GAN is completed.
I don't think that's confusing so I would recommend a move after this GAN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
"This later work was published..." unref sentence.
Added ref.
"fetalisation theory" any link, explanation?  And I assume we're now in USEng or that would be foetalisation?
Used -z- as that's how Bolk's work is described. Not sure any better link than Louis Bolk is available.
"n Paleobiology, " that links to the science, not some kind of publication.
Fixed.
Same in the accompanying reference.
Fixed.
"noted that 2 years earlier" two
Fixed.
" ad- vanced" copy/paste issue?  Fix and check others.
Made 2 fixes.
"excellently illustrated with often surprising examples, " this should be either attributed, quoted or neutralised in tone.
Attributed.
Ref 4 (along with the note above about the Paleobiology link) needs access-date and pref format=pdf
Formatted, used jstor as source.
"Book preview - Google Books" en-dash.
Fixed.
That's it for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"the book had two objectives, unexceptionably to gain practice, ...":  What does "gain practice" mean?  Are we talking about the practice of gain, or gaining more practice (neither of which makes sense), or what?  Unfortunately, I can't access this review at present. Zaslav (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I suggest a sentence to head the Reception section, like:  "Its initial reception was ambivalent but the book turned out to be very influential and is considered a classic." Zaslav (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

OK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)