Talk:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 00:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I plan to review this tonight. Note this is my first literature-related review, so apologies in advance for any obvious errors. ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for the wait—this should be all and I have now placed this article on hold. Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns, otherwise I may not respond. Thanks! ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 15:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I believe I have addressed all issues that need to be addressed. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nice work! Happy now to pass this article for GA status per the changes implemented. Congrats! ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I believe I have addressed all issues that need to be addressed. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio check
[edit]Earwig says good to go. The quotations are used in-line with WP:COPYQUOTE.
File
[edit]The image used is appropriate and copyright-free:
File:Science Fact and Science Fiction An Encyclopedia.jpg: valid public domain rationale, low-quality image in use.
Prose
[edit]- Begin the first sentence in § History with his full wikilinked name—both the first mention in the lead and body of an article are wikilinked.
- Done. I also glossed it. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- "noting that while" – is an alternative word choice perhaps available to avoid duplicating noting in two sentences in a row?
- Changed to "writing". TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- "compared the book favourably to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction by editors Peter Nicholls and John Clute," – this is already wikilinked above. Relatedly:
- Removed the link. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Mentioning the editors should be moved to its first mention.
- "and The Science in Science Fiction." – duplicate link.
- Removed the link. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I do not think "best work" needs quotation marks. Alternatively, something like "called it an example of Stableford's greatest work" could also work.
- I removed it altogether. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- There are three successive sentences in this paragraph that start with "She"; perhaps one of those could be changed to "Gordon" to avoid repetition.
- Gordon's review is given quite a lot of words which may lead to undue weight. For instance, her and Latham's reviews are of about the same word count, yet Latham's is fairly short in comparison. Is is possible to shorten Gordon's slightly?
- It has been shortened slightly by removing the part mentioned above. Gordon's review is rather lengthy and covers a lot of different aspects (in other words, it's fairly in-depth), so I think it's reasonable that it gets a fair amount of space in this article. Latham's review may have a similar word count in total, but that review also covers another of Stableford's works (Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Literature), so it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I see!
- It has been shortened slightly by removing the part mentioned above. Gordon's review is rather lengthy and covers a lot of different aspects (in other words, it's fairly in-depth), so I think it's reasonable that it gets a fair amount of space in this article. Latham's review may have a similar word count in total, but that review also covers another of Stableford's works (Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Literature), so it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Per MOS:NOTSEEALSO, disambigs should not be used in § See also.
- Used a hatnote instead. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Refs
[edit]Passes spotcheck—no concerns with refs 2, 3 or 5.
- I notice you have italicised the book title in the citation names except for refs 4 and 6. Is it practice to not do this for titles which only the book title?
- I don't know, it just intuitively seemed odd to italicize it in those instances (could be mistaken for the work the review appears in rather than the title of the review itself, for instance). I have added "Review:" to the reference titles for clarity. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes sense. Good call.
- I don't know, it just intuitively seemed odd to italicize it in those instances (could be mistaken for the work the review appears in rather than the title of the review itself, for instance). I have added "Review:" to the reference titles for clarity. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Other
[edit]Short desc, section formatting and cats good.
- Recommend adding template:use dmy dates (or the preferred date format).
- Recommend adding template:use X English.
- In External links, is it possible to make the Internet Archive URL in italics for consistency?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.