Talk:Mercury in fiction/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 11:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• I looked at the top matches on Earwig's Copyvio Detector and found no concerns. Image positioning, captions and licensing all seem fine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Not a huge range of sources cited, but all are good quality as far as I can tell, and there is enough range for a GA. Based on what I've seen in the sources, breadth and depth seem appropriate for a GA. Did some spot checks and found no issues.
• You could add some date ranges in the lead (e.g. "appeared as a setting in fiction since at least 1622"; 1893 as the start of the belief about it being tidally locked)
• Ref 1 shows me a "url-status (link)" error.
• Early depictions: any reason not to include a few lines about the planet, e.g that it'd been known since ancient times, temperatures? I think ""the innermost planet of the Solar System" should be included here so that the citation can be removed from the lead.
• Tidal locking: "Examples include ..." is a pretty long sentence but I found it OK to read.
• I was hoping to claim that Mission to Mercury should be mentioned as I used to like the Hugh Walters Chris Godfrey of U.N.E.X.A.series, but a quick search suggests it may not be very notable.
• Optional: You could use IABot to archive sources.
• Any reason not to include the ISBN for The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (4th ed.)?
• For the record, I have had a look at Talk:Mercury_in_science_fiction/GA1 and Talk:Mercury_in_fiction#Transclusion_from_GA_Review_Page_comments_prior_to_review.
• I don't have much to say here, TompaDompa. Thanks for working on this interesting article. I'll have another look after your replies. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

TompaDompa's replies:

• About the WP:LEAD: The main reason I want the reference at the end of the lead is that the division into three distinct phases is a very useful one, and I want to give credit where credit is due in terms of where it comes from. I've summarized what the source says in my own words, but not citing the source would feel a bit too close to WP:PLAGIARISM for my comfort. Adding information to the lead that is not present in that source would therefore be a bit odd to my eye, though still possible (so if you want me to, I will).
• I'm not getting any error message for ref 1, but I have at any rate removed the parameter.
• I don't think background information on Mercury itself (size, temperature, history of observation, etymology, and so on) really belongs at this article, which I would prefer to stay focused on how the planet has been depicted in fiction. I think the purpose of providing background information about the planet is better served by linking to the main Mercury (planet) article, as is currently the case. The exception to this is the background information deemed by the sources on the topic of how the planet has been depicted in fiction to be important for context (e.g. the history of the belief that it was tidally locked to the sun). I have added a sentence about the proximity to the Sun making astronomical observations difficult thus influencing fictional depictions, since several sources mention this.
• I added some archive links. I don't think they make much sense for books, so I didn't add them there. I also didn't add any to the SFE references (the entries at the SFE themselves link to the Wayback Machine).
• The fourth edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is the online one, so ISBN doesn't really apply.

Ping BennyOnTheLoose. TompaDompa (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, TompaDompa. I'm happy with responses and amendments. "the innermost planet of the Solar System" from the lead is not in the body; I believe that it should be, as the lead is meant to summarise information in the article. (That's my interpretation of MOS:NOTLEDE, but I'm always open to discussion.) I'll give myself a gentle  Self-trout for asking about the ISBN for an online edition. Also, there's a place where the refs are [3][2][11] - these could be put in numerical order. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @BennyOnTheLoose: MOS:LEAD says Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. I think Mercury being the innermost planet counts as one of those basic facts that an exception can be made for. I put the references in ascending numerical order. TompaDompa (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Passing for GA. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)