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