Talk:Starship Troopers/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 01:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This one, for review, I shall take. Sagecandor (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

That you are willing, very glad, I am. Vanamonde (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 11, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I read the book and saw the film many years ago and it was a joy to encounter such a high quality article about this subject again. I rarely say this, but I will say it here: the intro section is a bit too long. I would recommend trimming it down to four paragraphs each of four or five sentences in length, tops. Otherwise, the writing quality is quite good throughout, certainly more than good enough for good article quality for right now. Suggest you may wish to consult Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels about the precise order of the sections, but the sections are all there and they are quite in-depth, very well done.

2. Verifiable?: The article is meticulously cited throughout, with a notes and bibliography section. These don't need to be in the three level headers and can each just be their own two level headers.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article is tremendously thorough, I daresay probably one of the most thorough on a novel I have seen on Wikipedia.

4. Neutral point of view?: The sections "Criticism of militarism" and "Allegations of fascism" are well cited and fleshed out. As well as "Utopianism" and "Race and gender". The mere existence to me of this detail level of research shows that the article is not overly promotional, nor overly critical, yet matter of fact and academic in its detail to the references. It passes for NPOV.

5. Stable? No instability for a few months. Just some minor IP edits to watch out for. Talk page doesn't have recent comments for a few years, no arguments there ongoing.

6. Images?: Four images. Two fair use with good fair use rationales. Two free use with appropriate licensing.

Very very very very very very well done. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)