Well, first of all it references with the word 'possibly' the even referenced here: "it is now widely accepted that the devastation and climate disruption from the impact was the cause of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Why bother with the qualifier in a children's book which has a focus other than the main subject of the book? I mean, yes, science is all about theories and theories can (and should) evolve, and it's important that children learn that. But the sentence that used the word 'possibly' didn't need it, and it brought me up short to do research. And it makes me feel that maybe the rest of the book is going to be inaccurate, incomplete, biased, or in some other way not worth my time.
Second, the charts and diagrams seem confusing to me. For example: What does the green area in the graph on p. 15 mean? It almost looks like the claim is being made that there has been a steady rate in decline of species over the last 600 million years, barring the mass extinctions and other moderate (?) extinction events. I would like to know more, because I have no reason to suspect that there was lower diversity 6 million years ago vs. 600 mya. After all, new species do evolve all the time.
And don't say 'well it's just a kids' book.' Young people need and deserve good science.
---
Ok done.
It got less frustrating. I read or closely skimmed the whole short thing and am glad that I did. But it's also from 2017 in a fast-evolving field, so, dated. I think those interested might be better off researching online. It's more valuable, at least for me, to get an overview of some of the ideas and efforts 'so far.'