Talk:Stars in fiction/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Vestrian24Bio 02:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 22:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs) 11:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will be reviewing this article, expect the initial remarks soon! Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Add archive links to the appropriate sources using the iabot tool Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where archive links are appropriate, they are present. Adding archive links to e.g. Google Books or The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction adds a bunch of clutter to no real benefit. TompaDompa (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider redirecting the redlinks to a relevant page such as filmography etc. (not compulsory; just a suggestion). Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Once the below given concerns have been addressed, I will do a source spot-check. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In the "Neutron stars" section, a spacefarer is thus imperiled when the spacecraft approaches such a star too closely... - clarify the bolded part; Also what does the anticipation thereof means to... I think both of these are pretty clear in the contexts they appear in the article. In the first case, the danger comes from the tidal forces (the article says that neutron stars have very strong gravitational fields yet comparatively small sizes on the order of a few kilometers or miles, resulting in extreme tidal forces in their proximity. In Larry Niven's 1966 short story "Neutron Star", a spacefarer is thus imperiled when the spacecraft approaches such a star too closely and the difference in gravitational pull between the near and far end threatens to rip it apart.. In the second case, it refers to the anticipation of an extinction event caused by a neutron star merger (the full sentence is Neutron star mergers release enormous amounts of radiation that could cause extinction events at interstellar distances; such an event devastates Earth in Greg Egan's 1997 novel Diaspora, and the anticipation thereof [...]). TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] In the "Stellar evolution" sub-sections, use the {{Main}} hatnote template instead of {{Further}}. {{Main}} is for when WP:Summary style is used. This isn't really the case here; the sub-sections do not summarize the contents of the linked articles but the coverage of those topics in sources on the topic of this article (Stars in fiction), which is somewhat different. You might notice that the focus is different and that some things are omitted—there is nothing about inducing supernovae, Neutronium, or Micro black holes in fiction in this article, for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] In the "Sentient" section, the Starchild Trilogy should be Starchild trilogy. Tweaked. Our article is actually called Starchild Trilogy, though maybe it shouldn't be. TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] In the "Real stars" section, how Tau Ceti becomes the nearest...? It is the nearest star [...] that could plausibly harbour habitable planets. The stars that are closer could not plausibly do so. TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Wouldn't that be Proxima B? Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] The cited source says The nearest solitary star that is not excluded by the above criteria is Tau Ceti; the criteria in question are about likely prerequisites for planetary habitability, and one of them is that multiple stars may not allow for habitable planets. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] All else good. Vestrian24Bio 02:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Add ENGVAR and date format tags. Not a WP:Good article requirement. There is no reason to have this in any particular variety of English as long as it is self-consistent, and there are no dates that need any particular format anyway. TompaDompa (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Remove the "See also" section. Why? Linking to similar/related pages is helpful. TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body per MOS:LAYOUT, Sun in fiction is already given in a hatnote and other planets in the image aren't exactly relevant to stars... Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] For Sun in fiction, there are no links to the bare article (as opposed to a specific section), and it's a general rule that we can make exceptions to at our discretion anyway. On the planets, I rather disagree—planets are the main astronomical locations that appear in fiction (and readers visiting one article on such a topic are likely to be interested in others, hence Template:Astronomical locations in fiction), and the image is an elegant way to both add a navigational aid and something visually interesting. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Notes and References should be put together like this, == References == === Explanatory notes === {{notelist}} === Citations === {{reflist}} That's one way of doing it. I prefer my way. TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Also, some of these notes (notes a, c, e) can be removed as unnecessary. I think they are helpful. TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Could use List-defined references. I prefer the way it is currently done. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Are the {{Anchor}} templates used in this page actually needed...? They are used for redirect targets. TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Other anchors are fine, but for the {{Anchor\|Living}}, redirects should be changed to Stars in fiction#Sentient instead. Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] It's a perfectly plausible mistake for someone to link Stars in fiction#Living as we have e.g. Extrasolar planets in fiction#Living, just as it would be a perfectly plausible mistake to link to Extrasolar planets in fiction#Sentient. Making sure that a link that is intended to go to this specific section actually does so even if the person who made that link misremembered the name of the section is helpful and does not have any real drawbacks. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Add a {{Portal bar}}. I can't say I see what benefit it confers (no portals link here), but I have added it. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Vestrian24Bio 11:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] All else good. Vestrian24Bio 02:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Page has general sources; add specific sources as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] I don't quite understand. The article uses sources on the overarching topic and cites them inline. TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sources specific to the text; here are two examples, At the end of "Power sources" section, there could be a source that specifically says about Superman's powers coming from sun. In the "Real stars" section, there could be a source that specifically says about Tau Ceti being the nearest star with habitable planets. Just a suggestion though... Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] This source, cited in the "Power sources" section, says Later stories about the comic book superhero Superman stipulate that his powers result from his proximity to Earth's yellow star, while he becomes powerless if exposed to the radiation of a red star. This source, cited in the "Real stars" section, says Imagine, if you will, a cautious author of the not so long ago when information on exoplanets was non-existent who desired a plausible nearby solar system in which to place the habitable world on which their story is set. The prudent writer might discard bright stars (too short-lived), multiple star systems like Alpha Centauri and 61 Cygni (stellar orbits may preclude habitable planets), long dead stars like van Maanen's Star (that would have killed their planets), and dim stars like Barnard's Star (planets would be tide-locked). The nearest solitary star that is not excluded by the above criteria is Tau Ceti [...]. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spot-check: pass Vestrian24Bio 02:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images have appropriate copyright details. Vestrian24Bio 02:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Add an image to the "Neutron stars" (i.e File:Eso1733s Artist's impression of merging neutron stars.jpg) section and "Real stars" (i.e File:Nearest stars rotating red-green.gif or File:12lightyears.gif) section... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] I don't want to overload the article with images. Depending on screen width and settings, adding an image in the "Neutron stars" section can cause alignment problems, and I don't think there are any particularly good images to use anyway. I also don't think there are any particularly good images to use for the "Real stars" section—a map of stars doesn't really help the readers' understanding of the topic and isn't particularly visually interesting either. In this case, I think less is more. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing for GA. Vestrian24Bio 02:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Vestrian24Bio:, could you confirm that you assessed criteria 3a, 3b, 4, and 5, and maybe make a comment assessing why each passes (or does not)? Thanks! It's important that anyone looking over the review sees why the reviewer thinks it meets all criteria. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811:

3a: Covers all content within the topic.
3b: Stays on topic, with also sub-articles where necessary.
4: complies with WP:NPOV.
5: Last edit before the review was made on 7 December has been stable since.

Vestrian24Bio 12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]