# Talk:Philosophie zoologique

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philosophie Zoologique/GA1. 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 <^>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 <^>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 <^>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 <^>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 <^>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)