Feedback from New Page Review processEdit
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work!.
North8000 (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
In other words, the book's defenders include Graham Averill, whose self-description is that he is a (itinerant?) writer for magazines, mixed (mostly unspecified) reviews from mostly (unspecified) scientists- that is to say, people who actually know what they're talking about while not having skin in the game (I do not take into account an author's self-review) - of which the only example given is a politely negative one. Until the reception section is extended, that's 1 negative, 1/2 positive (unless some credential suggesting Mr. Averill also has some idea what he's talking about is presented or, again, the reception section is extended.) Looking online I find a positive review from "Scientific Inquirer" which seems to want to be confused with Skeptical Inquirer but is nothing of the sort. So, so far, no reason whatsoever presented to trust this book or its author. Go on? ELSchissel (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)