Talk:Dragon's Egg/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    This article is very well written, I have one minor quibble. Should the word cheela when first introduced in the lead have quote marks?
    That appears to have been resolved by now. =P --Twilight Helryx 16:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually suggesting that they might be a useful addition, but I shall wait until the nominator returns from wikibreak. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry. I thought it was the other way around. ^^" Anyway, is this something we should let the nom do (assuming he/she agrees), or can anyone add them in?--Twilight Helryx 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    All online links are live. Reference # 21 [1] doesn't mention the book and I am not sure it is an RS; same for ref #22 [2], which appeasr to be a wiki; ASGF for the print source. References 1, 3 & 4 would be better formatted in the form "Forward, pp. 287-289", etc. in my opinion as unless the wikilink is clicked it is not immediately clear what the reference is. Wikilinked billion (Two instances - probably the short scale as that is the common US usage), starquakes, rejuvenation, ull (in reference 25) Green tickY
    Several points there, I've started sections #References and #Terms. --Philcha (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, just a few minor points mentioned above, which I feel should be addressed. On hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, good to go. I am happy to confirm that this article is worthy of GA status, thanks for you hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Jezhotwells, thanks for:
    taking on an unusual genre.
    the quick response once I was in play. --Philcha (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • I agreed with the objection Blink_of_an_Eye_(episode), and this diff removed the sfdebris page. If these fall, I think so does all the material about "Blink_of_an_Eye". --Philcha (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you mean by "ASGF for the print source" - is this an WP-speak I've missed? --Philcha (talk)
  • As a reader I find chapter / section titles much more useful than pages, as titles work for various editions / printings and for various languages (Dragon's Egg in 6 languages). How about "Forward: Dragon's Egg (technical)", e.g., all linking to the main "Bibliography" details. --Philcha (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I got all them. Thanks for making me thinking about this, one of these days WP will get a referencing method that will informs users as well as support WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terms[edit]

  • I'd prefer to avoid any explanation of the "billion" issue - for example I can't remember the book's go into this. Standard in WP is "adopt of the author's dialect", and I'm happy to use (implictly) 10^9 although I'm a Brit. How do recent UK SF authors get round this? --Philcha (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm of Irish origin and am used to the original Brit usage (which I boringly cite on occasion) of 10^12, but I think 10^9 is almost universal now and the author is American so if they actually say billion I guess they mean 10^9 and it would be better to link to that - it is a factor of 10^3 after all. On reading WP on long and short scales I see that the common UK usage is now short scale 10^9 (no-one told me!). User:JezhotwellJezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • billion (10^9) in lead - i.e. assume 10^9 in the text, but link to explicit 10^9. No-one told me too (that 10^9 is now common UK usage) - it's now official, I'm an old fart. --Philcha (talk)
  • starquakes, and rejuvenation now have specific links - sorry, I forget to use the DAB tool when nomination. --Philcha (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stableford, B.M. (2006). "Forward, Robert Lull". Science fact and science fiction: an encyclopedia. CRC Press. p. 191. ISBN 0415974607. Retrieved 15 Nov 2009. is a fake use of ull as the book uses some silly typography for the middle name Lull
  • How about my comment about cheela. It is not neccessarily a big deal, but it did leap out at me. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd drop the quotes rather than go into a MOS analyis - gone. --Philcha (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Sources & Notes[edit]

Reviews[edit]

Awards[edit]

Themes[edit]

Influences[edit]

On "Egg"[edit]

Influenced by "Egg"[edit]

Biblio[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dragon%27s_Egg/GA1&oldid=1136677791"