Jump to content

Talk:The Gods from Outer Space

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 10:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Promoter's comment this isn't going to make anyone happy, is it? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Modified ALT1 to T:DYK/P2

Books section

[edit]

The Books section as a numbered list is a mess. A better presentation would be a table in three columns for the three languages English, German and Polish, with one volume per row. — 174.87.179.155 (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Gods from Outer Space/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 13:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No images to review. I have only limited ability to review the reliability of the Polish sources, but there are a couple of questions below.

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • comicsreview.co.uk -- looks like a blog.
    • relax.nast.pl
  • Is this source a thesis?
  • There's an unclosed parenthesis in the "Books" section.
  • I would avoid using "noted" for opinions: it implies a statement of fact. You have twelve uses of "note" in the "Reception" section. Some are fine but e.g. "noted that the series has a mostly cohesive plot" is an opinion. I would use verbs of opinion such as "argue", "consider", "suggest", or even just "say".

Just the points above. Not necessary for GA, but you might take a look at WP:RECEPTION which recommends ways to organize the reception section so it's not just a listing of opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie (Minor note: can you echo me when you post comments for me to see? TIA).
Re: comicsreview.co.uk - you are right. Fortunately, it is not used to reference anything by itself anymore, so I'll move it to external links.
Re: relax.nast.pl - setting aside it's the only source for some useful (I think) information, I think this may meet WP:SPS. The author is Leszek Kaczanowski who may qualify as " an established subject-matter expert". I looked into him, it's a bit hard to get much info, but summarizing what I wrote at pl:Dyskusja:Relax_(magazyn_komiksowy)#Leszek_Kaczanowski he at minimum a (small) publisher of comics in Poland (owns a publishing company), he has published some works about Polish comics (in addition to the webpage we link to, now dead, also a book on Polish comics and possibly a number of aricles in comic magazines/zines, those are really hard to verify, this stuff is mostly not digitized, but some of the stuff on his webpage might be reprints from other places). He also might claims to have been the founder of the classic Polish comic book magazine Relax (I couldn't find any sources to support or disprove his claim). His webpage has been cited in academic (or other) sources a few times (ex. here, academic paper on Polish comics). I'd go on a limb here and say that the verifiable fact that he published a book about Polish comics makes him an expert (although the publisher of the book is a small time comic publisher http://contur.org.pl/pl/ ). Anyway, I have no reasons to doubts the information he provided is correct, and he is an expert, common sense-wise.
re: https://www.zeszytykomiksowe.org/sklad/lipka-chudzik1995.pdf is a master thesis, yes. I know WP:SCHOLARSHIP states "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." I'd argue that we should use the same criteria as for SPS, and the author is an expert in Polish comics according to a chapter dedicated to him by Maciej Parowski in his book which is effectively a who-is-who in Polish sf/fantasy scene (also an expert in Indian cinema according to [1]). Also, research into comics in Poland, from an academic perspective, is very limited, it's hard to demand "significant scholarly influence" in such field. Parowski mentions his thesis in his book, that's influence to me (a major figure in Polish sf/fantasy scence has noted its existence).
I added the missing ) and changed most 'noted', which I clearly overuse, to synonyms. I left three in, for balance.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:
  • I think if comicsreview.co.uk is not reliable enough to use as a source, we shouldn't put it in external links either.
  • Sorry, I'm not convinced about relax.nast.pl. The comics field has thousands of websites by people who are enthusiasts, and some of them have marginal involvement in the field, but I think we need to see something that shows reliable sources treat him as reliable. Publishing information about books ought to be citable to the publisher's website, or to the books themselves; we shouldn't need to go to what is essentially a self-published enthusiast site. If you could show that e.g. an encyclopedia of comics cites the website for facts about Polish editions, that would be much stronger evidence.
  • For the thesis, what exactly is being cited to it? It's at the end of the paragraph along with three other citations so I can't tell what depends on the thesis.
  • For the use of "note", there's one more I think should be changed: "noted that the series plot makes more sense than" is an opinion.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, WP:EL does allow linking to less then reliable but relevant sources.
Per my analysis above, I believe Leszek Kaczanowski meets our guidelines for reliability. Further, given how small and unreresearched Polish comic book market is, I very much doubt there is a more reliable source for that. The information about Swedish and Czech editions, with no names provided for their respective titles, is pretty much impossible to verify without being fluent in those obscure languages. For Spanish and French, I see some websites, but I have no clue if they are reliable or not. And, let me repeat, I am not aware of any "encyclopedia of comics" that would have information about this series that I haven't found. Maybe there's something in German, but I am not fluent in it to research it. If there is more information in Polish, perhaps in Kaczanowski's book or such, it is not digitized and searchable currently, I am have no access to Polish libraries.
The Master thesis is useful, as it provides one of the alternative names for the series in Poland, it is the reference for the content in our article "other names used in Poland include the "Däniken series" or the "Ais series"" (the thesis states those are the alternative titles in a footnote).
I've changed the instance of noted to opined. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus: OK on the thesis, given what it's citing. I wouldn't include comicsreview.co.uk myself, and I think it would get challenged at FAC, but for GA it's fine. Thanks for fixing that last use of "note". That just leaves relax.nast.pl. I understand that it's the only source you can find that contains certain information, and I agree there is quite possible no clearly reliable source that would cover the same material, but those are arguments for usefulness, not reliability. I don't feel I can pass GA while that source is in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie How about we ask about it at WP:RSN to break the deadlock? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Do note I've added a fair use image to the infobox. The bot will downscale it soon. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig shows no issues. I also need to do a couple of spotchecks:

  • FN 3 cites "Maciej Szatko, reviewing the volume for Gildia.pl, observed that outside of the underwhelming new cover art, the volume is very successful on many levels". I can't find an exact match for this but since I'm looking at a machine translation I can see the general sentiment matches so I think that's fine. FYI, the link is broken; you may want to add this archive link.
  • FN 14 cites "Patryk Wolski, reviewing this for Głos Kultury, was more critical, summarizing the plot as acceptable but not deep, noting that the work was targeting young adults, and that mature readers who are looking for something more than a mix of action with Däniken's theories will likely be left wanting". Verified.
  • FN 2 cites "Igor Soszyński [pl] discussing the history of the series in the early 2000s called it "one of the most famous and successful Polish comic book series". praising it for a well designed world, engaging story and the quality of Polch's drawings, criticizing only the characters for usually not being sufficiently developed." Verified.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Uh-oh, I've not only added the archive url but did various c/e on references, somehow I forgot to do so and they weren't up to my usual standards (missing a bunch of parameters in cite template). Fixed now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to post at RSN; I'm happy to leave the GAN open while we wait for opinions. You might want to try the comics wikiproject as well or instead. Re FN 3, not a GA issue but you should add an access date for the archive URL. Thanks for cleaning up the citations; I don't complain about most citation formats at GA because it's not part of the GA criteria, but I'm glad you fixed them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, sorry, meant to ping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my note at RSN I've decided to accept the relax.nast.pl as it is citing a non-controversial detail. Passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Gods_from_Outer_Space&oldid=1210678923"