Talk:Imagining Mars: A Literary History/GA1

GA Review

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

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