Talk:Lifespan: Why We Age – and Why We Don't Have To

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work!.

North8000 (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

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)[reply]