Talk:Genome (book)

Untitled

What's the difference between ISBN 0007635737 and ISBN 0060932902? Should the latter also be listed? ISBN 0007635737 doesn't even return any results at RedLightGreen (although it does return an obscure result at Amazon with no associated picture).—Ubern00b 01:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genome (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102085125/http://www.omim.org:80/ to http://www.omim.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsupported assertion

" For each nugget of science, Ridley also includes an error or misrepresentation. Some of these derive from poor scholarship: others from his political agenda." This is meaningless because the reviewer does not give a single example to support his assertion that there are errors, and therefore it should not be quoted. 76.122.86.169 (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

They are very well supported Coyne gives several examples in his thorough review; I've added three of them to give an idea of his argument, which is well supported. As always, it is the quality of the source that supports the statement in the article, and in this case, both the author, a leading biologist, and the publication (the London Review of Books) are of the highest quality. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)