Talk:Imagining Mars: A Literary History

Reception

@TompaDompa: I feel like John Gilbey's review is given too much space. You gave it more room than the other two reviewers combined. I believe that review should be trimmed a bit. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: I would on the contrary say that Gilbey's review is given a reasonable amount of space, and that the coverage of the other reviews should be expanded. There's a reason that there are several additional reviews listed in the "Further reading" section—I'm planning to expand the article with those sources, but haven't yet. TompaDompa (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's your area of expertise, so I imagine you would know what would be best. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, do you plan on getting a GA and/or DYK with this one? Just asking. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am. TompaDompa (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Imagining Mars: A Literary History/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 09:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to take up this review; I should be able to get some comments through in a few days.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  09:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Passing  Frzzl  talk; contribs  10:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Contents list is well done, article follows MOS well. One thing to ask - is every redlink here warranted? There sure are a lot... If (this article is excellently written) I have any points to raise on prose, they'll be listed below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Refs are formatted just fine, earwig comes up with 31%, pretty much just quotations from reviews. No evidence of OR found

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article is focused, everything looks fine here.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   From my reading, the coverage/balance of reviews is fair; looks NPOV to me.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   no signs of an edit war, looks fine

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Only image is fair use, no probs

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Spotchecks

Sources I've checked - 1, 2 (got hold of it through my own library), 9, 10, 13. Y happy that this article is well sourced.

Points

@TompaDompa:

• can we change "a couple of reviewers", to "However, some reviewers" or something similar. The original is a bit informal.
  • Done. TompaDompa (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• does smorgasbord in Morissey's review need to be in quotations?
  • I don't know if it's necessary, but I've added quotation marks. TompaDompa (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That's it - this is the best written GAN I've ever seen :D

Did you know nomination

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 Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Imagining Mars: A Literary History argues that depictions of Mars in fiction have been influenced by the scientific understanding of the planet—and vice versa? Source: See e.g. Landon, p. 314.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cusrow Baug
  • Comment: I'm open to other hooks. I might suggest running this on 31 August when Mars in fiction is scheduled as WP:TFA.

Improved to Good Article status by TompaDompa (talk). Self-nominated at 12:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Imagining Mars: A Literary History; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - n

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @TompaDompa: Good article, but the hook isn't really that interesting to me. Can a new one be proposed? Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I don't know if the article lends itself to particularly catchy hooks, but I'll give it a shot.

• ALT1: ... that Imagining Mars: A Literary History chronicles the history of Mars in fiction from the 1600s to the present day?
• ALT2: ... that Imagining Mars: A Literary History "presents a compelling case that 'Mars matters'"?
• ALT3: ... that Imagining Mars: A Literary History covers the history of Mars in fiction from Martian canals to terraforming?
• ALT4: ... that Imagining Mars: A Literary History was praised for having "one hundred pages of exploration of the predecessors of H. G. Wells's The War of the Worlds where the story begins for most readers"?

See what you think. TompaDompa (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and we can tweak the original hook to focus solely on the more surprising aspect, I suppose.

• ALT5: ... that according to Imagining Mars: A Literary History, our scientific understanding of Mars has been influenced by fiction about the planet?

Might be more interesting that way. TompaDompa (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly finding where alt1 is cited in the article but the other hooks are fine. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)