Talk:Dragon's Egg/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This article is very well written, I have one minor quibble. Should the word cheela when first introduced in the lead have quote marks?

   That appears to have been resolved by now. =P --Twilight Helryx 16:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

   I was actually suggesting that they might be a useful addition, but I shall wait until the nominator returns from wikibreak. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

   Oh, sorry. I thought it was the other way around. ^^" Anyway, is this something we should let the nom do (assuming he/she agrees), or can anyone add them in?--Twilight Helryx 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All online links are live. Reference # 21 [1] doesn't mention the book and I am not sure it is an RS; same for ref #22 [2], which appeasr to be a wiki; ASGF for the print source. References 1, 3 & 4 would be better formatted in the form "Forward, pp. 287-289", etc. in my opinion as unless the wikilink is clicked it is not immediately clear what the reference is. Wikilinked billion (Two instances - probably the short scale as that is the common US usage), starquakes, rejuvenation, ull (in reference 25) Y

   Several points there, I've started sections #References and #Terms. --Philcha (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, just a few minor points mentioned above, which I feel should be addressed. On hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   Fine, good to go. I am happy to confirm that this article is worthy of GA status, thanks for you hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

   Hi, Jezhotwells, thanks for:

   taking on an unusual genre.

   the quick response once I was in play. --Philcha (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

References

• I agreed with the objection Blink_of_an_Eye_(episode), and this diff removed the sfdebris page. If these fall, I think so does all the material about "Blink_of_an_Eye". --Philcha (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't find any Rs for this, mostly forum postings, twitter, etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Para removed. --Philcha (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
      • OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• What you mean by "ASGF for the print source" - is this an WP-speak I've missed? --Philcha (talk)
  • Sorry Philcha, I mean Assume Good Faith, an extra S crept in. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• As a reader I find chapter / section titles much more useful than pages, as titles work for various editions / printings and for various languages (Dragon's Egg in 6 languages). How about "Forward: Dragon's Egg (technical)", e.g., all linking to the main "Bibliography" details. --Philcha (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That is fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I think I got all them. Thanks for making me thinking about this, one of these days WP will get a referencing method that will informs users as well as support WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Terms

• I'd prefer to avoid any explanation of the "billion" issue - for example I can't remember the book's go into this. Standard in WP is "adopt of the author's dialect", and I'm happy to use (implictly) 10^9 although I'm a Brit. How do recent UK SF authors get round this? --Philcha (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm of Irish origin and am used to the original Brit usage (which I boringly cite on occasion) of 10^12, but I think 10^9 is almost universal now and the author is American so if they actually say billion I guess they mean 10^9 and it would be better to link to that - it is a factor of 10^3 after all. On reading WP on long and short scales I see that the common UK usage is now short scale 10^9 (no-one told me!). User:JezhotwellJezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    • billion (10^9) in lead - i.e. assume 10^9 in the text, but link to explicit 10^9. No-one told me too (that 10^9 is now common UK usage) - it's now official, I'm an old fart. --Philcha (talk)
• starquakes, and rejuvenation now have specific links - sorry, I forget to use the DAB tool when nomination. --Philcha (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Stableford, B.M. (2006). "Forward, Robert Lull". Science fact and science fiction: an encyclopedia. CRC Press. p. 191. ISBN 0415974607. Retrieved 15 Nov 2009. is a fake use of ull as the book uses some silly typography for the middle name Lull
  • Ok, that has gone now. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• How about my comment about cheela. It is not neccessarily a big deal, but it did leap out at me. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd drop the quotes rather than go into a MOS analyis - gone. --Philcha (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, not a GA issue IMHO. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources & Notes

Reviews

• Robert L. Forward - Independent obit of Forward, by Clute; incl mini-review of "Egg"
• The Literary Experience of Hard Science Fiction (Science Fiction Studies #60 = Volume 20, Part 2 = July 1993) (Science Fiction Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jul., 1993), pp. 176-183 )
• The Humans Were Flat but the Cheela Were Charming in 'Dragon's Egg'
• "The Closely Reasoned Technological Story: The Critical History of Hard Science Fiction (Science Fiction Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jul., 1993), pp. ??

Awards

• Locus Awards 1981 - First Novel
• Seiun_Award#Best_Foreign_Language_Novel_of_the_Year

Themes

• Contact
  • ? Science Introduction (Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A; L. Snyder & T.P. Weber; 2007)
• Hard SF
  • Close encounters?: science and science fiction - scientific rigour in Clement, Forward & Niven (pp. 41-43)
  • Communicating science, Volume 2 - Clement and Forward "deans" of hard SF (pp. 154-155)
  • Time machines: time travel in physics, metaphysics, and science fiction - 67 billion g would have produced 7% relativistic time dilation (p. 542)
  • Speaking of the Fantastic II - paradigm of hard SF, character weak (p. 113-114)
  • The SF Site Featured Review: The Hard SF Renaissance

Influences

On "Egg"

• Forward's own obit said Drake originated the idea of tiny fast-living creatures living on the surface of a neutron star.
• 'Dragon's Egg': Robert Forward Remembers - Clement's Mission of Gravity' ' may have planted the seed

Influenced by "Egg"

• ? Baxter's Flux (novel)
  • Building New Worlds: Construction and Influences (Stephen Baxter, 1995) - aware of "Egg"rather than influenced

Biblio

• Bibliography: Robert Lull Forward