Talk:Neptune in fiction/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

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

---

Should be a fairly breezy review. Looks like a high-quality short article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Spelling correct, can't find anything that needs to be reworded or punctuation in the wrong place.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead looks good to me: sums up the points efficiently and concisely. No weasel words are used as far as I can see. A tiny point: I'd recommend in "In the 1897 short story "The Star" by H. G. Wells[...]", "'The Star'" be changed to The Star, as book titles are written; that's a nitpick though.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   All source authors look trustworthy to me. All statements have a ref at the end.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   See above.

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig gives a score of 3.8%, which is more than acceptable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Broad coverage throughout history, but doesn't go into too much detail.

   b. (focused):

   See above.

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   Everything's suitably licensed as far as I can tell.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Captions are good, as are the ALTs.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   Well-written article. I couldn't find many faults with the writing, but I notice a large number of redlinks. If all these topics can be expanded into articles, keep them: if not, and the topics aren't notable, they should be removed. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)