Talk:Supernovae in fiction/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. —Kusma (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 21:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 08:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this soon. —Kusma (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review[edit]

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned.

Lead: short but more or less covers the topic.
Background: a little more background on astrophysics/history/etymology (a "nova" being a newly visible star, Tycho/Kepler, which stars can become supernova) would be nice to have here. Consider linking, for example, History of supernova observation.
- Expanded somewhat. I want to avoid going too much off-topic here. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of the super short section headings ("Disaster"/"Sun"). "Disaster" isn't a natural companion to "induced and exploited" either.
I am kind of missing a mention of Cixin Liu's The Wandering Earth and its film adaptations. Is this too new for your sources?
- It's not too new for the sources, but Stanway is the only one to mention it, saying: Recent works by Cixin Liu, such as his novella "The Wandering Earth" (2000), have also focussed on the (valid) astronomical prospect that the Sun will go through a brief but dramatic brightening known as a "helium flash" towards the end of its life. While this would be extremely short-lived in astrophysical terms, it might be enough to irradiate the Earth's surface. We believe that the Sun is likely about 5 billion years away from undergoing a helium flash, rather than the few centuries suggested by Liu, and that it will become a red giant before this occurs, but (unlike a nova) it will at least experience this evolutionary state! It seemed kind of a poor fit for the article based on that. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added the same author's Supernova Era (2003), using the same source. TompaDompa (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little about the supernovae itself here, just how they would impact humanity.
- That reflects the sources on the topic. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other stars: Anything about the real supernovae of the past? The Martian Star-Gazers for example mentions the 1572 supernova.
- Not that I've seen discussed by the sources, no. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Induced and exploited: again, not a fan of the heading.
How are the supernovae used as weapons? It seems too easy to wipe out yourself as well (as with the bomb in Life, the Universe and Everything).
- The sources don't really go into the details much here. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Doomsday (Doctor Who)": hide the disambiguator.
- Don't know how I missed that. Fixed. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Not a fan of the massive amount of whitespace caused by {{clear}} and the clickable image.
- I don't feel strongly about the {{Clear}} template, but when I've left it out in other articles other editors have been unhappy about the effect that has on the reference list's columns. I do feel strongly about including the clickable image, though. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does Supernova nucleosynthesis feature in any of the stories?
- Not that I've seen discussed by the sources, no. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty happy with the prose, but I have some broadness concerns and would like to see a bit more background information. —Kusma (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks[edit]

Looking at Special:PermanentLink/1230457162.

1b: ok
2p,q: ok
3d,m: ok. It is technically a "blog" but Stanway looks solid.
- Indeed. Stanway has been published in, among other things, Foundation. I raised this a few months ago at WT:SCIFI#"Cosmic Stories Blog" by Elizabeth Stanway, for the record. TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4a: ok
5e: ok
8: ok
10: ok
17: ok

Spotchecks passed. —Kusma (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments and GA criteria[edit]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Prose is fine as discussed above. No MoS issues other than perhaps section headers, but those may be personal preference
References are formatted nicely. In some cases, one might wish for precise page numbers, but the page ranges are so short that it is not a real issue.
Sources are good, mostly science fiction studies.
Could not detect any OR or copyvio issues during spotchecks.
Broadness/neutrality scrape a pass now that at least one non-English work is included.
No excessive focus on anything.
Stable since your rewrite.
Image licenses are OK, and captions work. You could consider adding ALT text, but I don't have a good suggestion what to write.

Looks like a pass! —Kusma (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.