Talk:Journey Through the Impossible

Journey Through the Impossible received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Journey Through the Impossible has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 20, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Journey Through the Impossible appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 July 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Jules Verne's play Journey Through the Impossible, featuring Captain Nemo and other heroes from Verne's novels, was presumed lost until 1978?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Journey Through the Impossible.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Journey Through the Impossible/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 01:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Okay, comments below. Nice job so far, very few changes to make it GA.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
No copyvios, spelling and grammar okay, and prose flows well. There is a tendency to use words like "thus", which gives the impression of OR. This might be an incorrect conclusion, but since the sources are mostly hard copy, with no on-line links, it is impossible to ascertain. Lead goes over all separate aspects covered in the body of the article; the layout, word choice, and covering a fictional topic are fine. There are no lists.
Good catches. I don't think there was any OR, but the text was definitely ambiguous enough to give that impression. I've rewritten the potential problem spots.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice corrections. Issues are gone.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
There are some peacock terms in the lead and reception section. The reception section also appears to make the play more successful than the sources support.
Thank you for catching those — I can see how those terms could sound like peacocks. I've also done my best to clarify the difference between popular (i.e. financial) success and critical success, since the play received more of the former than the latter.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All corrected. nice job
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Excellent use of images, all are public domain.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The use of some verbiage is a minor issue, but significant enough to need to be addressed. The neutrality issue is also not incredibly significant, but enough to be problematic. This is very close.
After correction of minor issues, this is now a GA.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Journey Through the Impossible. 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:

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) 10:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]