Talk:Genetics in fiction/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 20:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I am going to claim this one for review. I usually stick to film or TV articles, so this is a little outside of my wheelhouse, but this looks like an interesting subject so let's see how we go. I'll try and get back to you with some feedback soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've come up with a few things that I would like to see dealt with before I am happy to promote the article to GA:

• The lead doesn't really need references if the content is sourced in the body of the article, and if it isn't in the body then it generally shouldn't be in the lead.

Gone.

• I feel like the "Myth and oversimplification" section is the start of a decent reception section, and would work better for readers if they had already read the rest of the article first (especially when you start referencing other sections such as the bit about Gattaca). I think if you set-up this general response section at the bottom, you'll see if there is anything that needs to be moved there from the other sections and then we'll be able to re-assess it to see what it is looking like. Also, at that point you probably just need a top-level "Background" section rather than the over-arching "Context" heading.

Moved section, promoted Context section. But I feel that the descriptive section heading is apposite; I don't feel any need to move other materials there, as they belong in their respective sections.

Very well, I think the change you have made there is a good improvement. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• As someone who understand most of the scientific elements in this article but is not used to dealing with science-heavy Wikipedia articles, the whole thing comes across to me as a bit too scientific for readers who are more used to just reading about general fiction stuff. I would like to see a good copy-edit, particularly of the background section, to try and make the scientific info a bit more accessible.

Edited the Background section, adding glosses for anything that looked difficult. All the terms are bluelinked, making further explanation available at a click.

Cool, that's a lot better now. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• The sentence starting "The plot devices allow..." is a little complicated for me. I feel like some paraphrasing of the quotes and adjustments of where the citations are to not need so much punctuation could help here.

Rewritten.

• "After the double helix and then recombinant DNA, ..." -- is this supposed to be talking about after the discovery of these things?

Yes, fixed.

• I feel like you could find some info to expand the comic book paragraph, rather than just listing what they are called by different publishers. What research went into creating them? How have they changed over the years, since comics are ongoing? You could also explain that some of these ideas have been adapted to film or TV and if there was any change for those portrayals.

Well, the different names are not just taxonomic, as their bluelinks provide additional detail at a click. I have found a rare decent source and added more material on the origin, nature, and evolution of the comic-book mutant concept. This does feel much as if we're straying into the territory of other articles, though Science fiction comics leaves much to be desired. The comparison of, say, the genetic engineering aspects of the Marvel Cinematic Universe with the book variety would require a suitably scholarly source.

No worries, I think the bit you added helps to give it just a little more context and make it seem less like a short list of terms. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the mutant section could probably do with a bit more context: what is Titan's Daughter, and what is the notability of the stimulated polyploidy?

Glossed the science and said a bit more about the book.

• Can you just go through the article and make sure you are consistently using years when introducing new works? You haven't done it for Jurassic Park (though you do when referencing it again later).

Dated the novel and the film, and one or two others.

• The sentence "It combines selective breeding by the Bene Gesserit to produce the Kwisatz Haderach with the genetic engineering of the Tleilaxu" sounds like ti was written by a Dune fan to deliberately confuse anyone who isn't familiar with it. If this needs to be included, can it be explained better? I can work some stuff out by following the wikilinks, but I should be able to get some basic context just from reading this article.

Added glosses.

Yeah, I think that helps a lot. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• I feel like there is probably one image too many for the size of the article. If I was choosing which one to remove, it would be the cover of The Island of Dr Moreau, but I'll leave that up to you.

Well, since that section is now a good bit longer I think there's probably an easily high enough text/image ratio to keep the image (whatever the threshold ratio might be).

Fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Can you make sure that all web citations have archives, to make sure future readers will definitely be able to get to them?

All right, done, but this is certainly beyond the GA criteria.

Thanks, I know it is not explicitly part of the GA criteria but I do think it is an important thing for all articles to have, so any time I am reviewing an article for GA and it hasn't done this I like to bring it up. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Make your way through those, and then I'll have another look at the article and see how we are doing. Let me know if you have any questions or issues. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. I've done all so far. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool, it looks like all of my concerns have been addressed. I do think the article reads a lot better now, particularly for those who are not familiar with all the science stuff, and I already felt that the other criteria such as coverage is all good. Thanks for dealing with everything so quickly, and good job! Pass - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)