Talk:Parasites in fiction/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) 20:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the review. This seems like a very interesting article and it seems you have done some great work with this article. Please stand by, the review will commence soon. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki check

• No dead links
• No direct copyvios but this article seems very heavy on quotes

Quotations, always cited and attributed, form a small percentage of the article. They are used only when necessary, and are as short as possible, some being just 2 words, quoted to provide descriptors which would be thought non-neutral if in Wikipedia's voice. I've paraphrased all the longer quotations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap Thank you for the insight. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Issues

@Chiswick Chap: Starting.

• The first sentence in the lead is written awkward and only seems to shine on one type of parasite. Also the ending needs to be reworked.

Copy-edited.

• "though these are sometimes less "horrible" than real examples in nature." Please give insight onto why this is. Seems opinionated

Removed.

• The second "paragraph" of the lead has the potential to be expanded. It only seems to be featuring one type of parasite giving the article an impression that it will mainly focus on Alien.

Extended a little.

• The last sentence of "Context" is run on and needs to be improved for clarity

It wasn't, but I've split it for simplicity.

• "Parasitism as a literary motif became important in the nineteenth century, though with somewhat vague biology." A source should be after this and you need to explain why it has become more important and why is biology vague (I infer that it was the 1800s)

Reworded, and repeated ref.

• The first sentence of "Science Fiction" is confusing as it switches topics. I suggest further elaboration and a division of sentences.

Restructured.

• The entire article seems to have a ton of hyperbole words. I removed one for example. Another example would be "They form readily understood. Sometimes they can be useful but other times it seems to unbalance the neutrality.

There are no gratuituous adjectives that I'm aware of, and the descriptions are all attributable to sources. I've repeated some refs to make this clear.

• "Truth stranger than fiction" That section title could be tweaked a bit as it does not flow well.

Tweaked.

• "Other biologists agree, too" This is a Weasel word. Who are the biologists?

Reworded.

• "The idea of mind controlling parasites has appealed to some scriptwriters." needs a better opening.

Recast.

• "Brood parasitism is not a common theme in fiction." Why?

Not for me to speculate, though perhaps it's a less obvious or more female-oriented approach. We'd need a source that actually said that if we wanted to mention it, of course.

Excellent work on this article. I enjoyed the read through. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll action the comments promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Pass AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Forgot to say: Excellent work. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)