Wikipedia:Peer review/Immortality in fiction/archive1

Immortality in fiction

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to WP:Featured article status. I previously overhauled the article completely and brought it to WP:Good article status. I was curious as to what it would take to get it up to FA quality, so I looked for similar articles that had reached featured status, but I couldn't find any (though maybe I was just looking in the wrong place?). I thought it might be worth giving it a shot, if nothing else because it would be nice to have something to point to and say "this is how we want our "X in fiction" articles to be written". I asked the editors at WT:FAC what they about it, and they advised me to start a peer review.

Any and all feedback would be appreciated, be it about copyediting, content, structure, or something else.

Pinging some editors who have offered to help in one way or another to let them know this peer review has been started: The Rambling Man, Mike Christie, and Grapple X.

Thanks, TompaDompa (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from The Most Comfortable Chair

• "The concept of immortality has been featured in fiction since the Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest known work of fiction" does not seem like the best way to summarize the topic in one sentence, especially because it features Epic of Gilgamesh prominently. I would expect the first sentence to be a general and broad description of the topic, and it should not focus on a specific aspect of it.
• While the lead does summarize the topic concisely (and it flows really well), I feel that it could be slightly longer and split into two paragraphs. This is mainly what I felt after a quick glance, so feel free to ignore me — LEADLENGTH is not an absolute guideline.
• For an article related to fiction, I would expect there to be a few more images than just the one in the lead.

— The Most Comfortable Chair 15:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I added a new sentence before the first one and copyedited what used to be the first sentence (now the second sentence) somewhat. I also added two images. TompaDompa (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment by buidhe

At 2909 words there is plenty of room for expansion. If I saw this article at FAC, I would be skeptical that comprehensiveness is met (although literature is really not my ballgame so take this with a grain of salt.) My comments about non-representation of non-Western fiction still apply. Is this just not a thing in African, East Asian etc. literature? If so, is there any source that says so explicitly? (t · c) buidhe 12:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Examples exist, but I have had difficulties locating sources that discuss how immortality is treated in one or several of various regions'/cultures' works of fiction more broadly—the sources I have come across mostly deal with philosophical or religious writings (sometimes poetry) as opposed to fiction, analyse only a single work of fiction (where immortality is usually just one aspect among many), discuss immortality in a more metaphorical sense (typically being remembered long after one's death), or mention immortality only in passing (perhaps as a MacGuffin). I am of course unfortunately limited to languages I actually speak when searching for and reading sources—for example, I gather that Ada Barbaro's La fantascienza nella letteratura araba goes into more detail about immortality in Arabic literature than does Ian Campbell's Arabic Science Fiction, but I wouldn't be able to read the former even if I had access to it. I have at any rate made an effort to include more non-Western examples, and there are now Egyptian, Moroccan, Indian, Chinese, Argentinian, and Soviet examples mentioned. TompaDompa (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

A big problem is that much of such text is not in English... if it exists at all. Here is a Polish academic article that seems to deal with immortality in Russian literature... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Rublov

• Lead
  • I would drop the definition of immortality from the first sentence. Immortality is a well-known concept, it is wiki-linked, and freedom from death isn't the most encyclopedic definition anyway.
  • Not sure whether you should say 'speculative fiction' or just 'fiction'. I guess speculative fiction encompasses non-realistic literature from any era, but I more often see the term used to refer to modern-day science fiction and fantasy.
  • Link mythology.
  • It's a bit inaccurate to say that immortality is "portrayed" in fiction, as if immortality were a person or a place that a work of literature attempted to represent. "Included" is more correct but a little imprecise; I can't think of a better word off the top of my head.
  • Link science fiction and fantasy.
  • Maybe link "literary history" to History of literature.
  • strong as it may be strikes me as a little unencyclopedic in tone.
  • proposed negative effects — "proposed" isn't quite the right word; you mean something more like "depicted" although that's not a great word here either; "negative effects" is a bit wordy, maybe "drawbacks"?
  • This view was challenged by a large number of authors in the 20th century — give examples, and maybe rephrase as This view was challenged in the 20th century by writers such as...
  • The number of immortals present in each story varies from a single person to everyone — seems trivial; I'd remove it.
  • immortality itself is commonly obtained either from supernatural entities or objects or through biological or technological means. — enliven with examples, e.g. the Holy Grail.
• History
  • I'd link Epic of Gilgamesh again since it's the first mention after the lead.
  • Several Greek myths of antiquity — examples? Immortality#Ancient_Greek_religion has a few.
  • Is Chinese fiction literature a technical term? "Fiction literature" seems redundant.
  • which both remain unfinished — unclear why this matters.
  • but more positive attitudes successively emerged — I would rewrite as but more positive depictions also emerged; there's probably a better word than 'emerged'.
  • By the 1930s, opinions were divided into camps with respectively favourable and unfavourable views on immortality, a division that continued at least until the 1960s. — 'respectively' doesn't work here; without more details about who was in these camps and what they believed, this sentence amounts to "some people thought immortality was good and others thought it was bad", a statement which is true of all of human history and not just the 1930s.
  • a trend of more analytical and evenhanded treatments — 'evenhanded' isn't the right word; it implies 'impartial' but you mean 'neutral'.
  • outright contes philosophiques — 'outright' doesn't work here because it's not contrasting with anything.
  • I guess you are saving specific examples for later sections but I think this section would be improved by referring to a few of the most significant depictions of immortality in fiction.
• Types
  • Different kinds of immortality have been conceived — vague; better would be Depictions of immortality differ in a number of ways, such as whether immortals are still susceptible to injuries, etc.
  • the common feature of which is significantly prolonged lifespans — isn't the common feature of immortality the absence of death, not significantly prolonged lifespans?
  • The most common form of immortality is that of an individual living a life with an extended duration — again, immortality implies infinite duration, not merely extended.
  • Absolute immortality is uncommon — this term is used nowhere else in the article and it's not clear exactly what it means.
• Causes
  • modern medical and technological advancements — I suggest modern medicine and technology as more concise. Perhaps even better would be advanced medicine and technology.
  • and/or — this construction is generally discouraged; see MOS:SLASH.
  • In Chinese author Wang Jinkang's 2005 short story "The Reincarnated Giant", immortality is attainable by replacing aged body parts one at a time. — given that both the story and the author are red links, not sure this is notable enough for inclusion.
  • Exclude "the" from the wikilink for the malaria parasite.
  • A kind of non-physical immortality can also be achieved — the can also be achieved makes it sound like it's stating a scientific fact.
  • Pick a year for The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1890 or 1891.
  • an inadvertent such deal — awkward
  • the captain's blasphemy — I'd say something like the ghost ship Flying Dutchman so it's clear that you are talking about the captain of a ship.
  • Several stories exist — examples?
  • A commonly occurring motif is that of — suggest A common motif is.
• Outcomes
  • First sentence of section should summarize different possible outcomes of immortality.
  • The word 'featured' is overused in this article.
  • These positive depictions — this sentence should be broken up into multiple sentences.
• Overall
  • At times, the article feels more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I've tried to point out specific instances where I felt the tone was not quite encyclopedic.
  • The profusion of examples makes it difficult to read the article from start to finish because almost every sentence is discussing a new thing. It would benefit from some extended discussions of particularly notable depictions of immortality in fiction.
  • The examples are very heavily biased towards 20th century speculative fiction. Even if "fiction" excludes religious literature, surely there are many depictions of immortality in traditional folk tales. For example, One Thousand and One Nights mentions a story called "The Adventures of Bulukiya" which concerns a quest for immortality. The medieval stories about the Holy Grail and the Fisher King should be mentioned as well. There's no discussion of poetry either; not sure if that's intentionally excluded from the category of "fiction", but if so it seems arbitrary to me to include films and video games but not poems. You could mention the common trope in poetry, especially love poetry, that the poet has the power to immortalize the object of their desire through verse, e.g. in Shakespeare's sonnets.

Rublov (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rublov: I've done most of these. Some comments:

• The reason I wrote "Chinese fiction literature" is to distinguish between fiction and philosophy. There is quite a bit of Chinese philosophical literature dealing with immortality.
• It doesn't really matter that Dumas' and Goethe's versions were never finished, but it seemed odd to mention that they were written without mentioning that they weren't completed.
• I removed "evenhanded", but I will note that Stableford does indeed use that exact word.
• The "History" section now mentions Gilgamesh, Tithonus, and the Wandering Jew. Along with the Struldbruggs mentioned in the following section, those are the most significant depictions of immortality in fiction if the sources cited on the page are anything to go by.
• I agree that the expected meaning of "immortality" is the absence of death, but the sources use the term to mean both unrestricted longevity and immunity to death. I have at any rate changed the phrasing to "indefinitely prolonged lifespans".
• I'm sure Wang Jinkang is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article even if one does not currently exist. He gets quite a bit of coverage in sources about Chinese science fiction and has an entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, for instance. See also above about including non-Western examples.
• I have strived to give a broad overview of the topic of immortality in fiction, covering it in general terms where possible. To this end, I have tried not to go into too much detail about specific examples—the article should stay focused on the main topic. A side-effect of this is that expanding the article has to a large extent meant adding brief descriptions of additional examples. I am open to reducing the number of examples to improve readability or go into a bit more detail about some of them, but I don't think "extended discussions of particularly notable depictions" is consistent with staying focused on the main topic and giving appropriate weight to each in accordance with how the sources do it.
• The large proportion of examples from the 20th century is a consequence of the sources largely focusing thereon. I don't mind including earlier examples, but countering perceived biases needs to be balanced with accurately reflecting the weight given to different aspects by the body of reliable secondary and tertiary sources on the topic.
• Poetry is not excluded—The Epic of Gilgamesh is mentioned prominently—but only some poems are fiction. Do not go gentle into that good night is not fiction, for instance. This is also true of novels (The Grapes of Wrath is fiction but Schindler's Ark is not) and films (documentaries are not fiction), as well as other media (I could see an argument that video games do not belong however, I suppose). The concept of "immortalizing" someone by mentioning them in poetry seems so far removed from that of immortality as to be an equivocation.

TompaDompa (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: sounds good. My only additional suggestion would be to write "Chinese fictional literature" instead of "Chinese fiction literature". Or just "Chinese fiction". Rublov (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about this a bit more... you say The large proportion of examples from the 20th century is a consequence of the sources largely focusing thereon and I have no doubt this is true, but many, if not most, of the sources cited are specifically about science fiction/fantasy, e.g.:

• Immortal Engines: Life Extension and Immortality in Science Fiction and Fantasy
• Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia
• The Encyclopedia of Fantasy
• The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction
• Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia
• The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders

So it's no surprise that these sources mainly discuss modern science fiction, but the selection of sources itself does not seem to me to be fully representative of the topic. A quick Google Scholar search for "immortality in literature" brought up a few relevant results; perhaps they could be integrated into the article?

Alternatively, I see that we have an article on Moon in science fiction. If this article were titled "Immortality in science fiction" or "Immortality in speculative fiction" then that would address my concerns without requiring you to do a lot of additional work. Rublov (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rublov: I have taken a look at the search results. Unfortunately and perhaps somewhat surprisingly, they are mostly false positives (so to speak). I have at any rate expanded the article somewhat.

The reason Moon in science fiction is called that is mainly that it is about the Moon as a location in fiction (not, say, as an object in the sky as it may be in werewolf stories). I don't think it would be appropriate to change the title of this article to Immortality in science fiction because that would (for instance) necessitate leaving out the Struldbruggs even though they are one of the most prominent examples used by a lot of the sources. To my eye, renaming it Immortality in speculative fiction would only serve to make the title less WP:CONCISE, inasmuch as any fiction that features immortality could reasonably ipso facto be considered speculative fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Few cents (without reading other reviews here):

• would 'Means' be a better section heading that 'Causes'? Also, subheadings in 'Outcomes' don't need to repeat the word (so 'Negative outcomes' -> 'Negative', etc.). The article has an 'Other' subheading and 'Others', which means there is a weird dissonance (the latter should likely lose an 's') and the need to reconsider whether having two identical headings cannot be remedied somehow.
• Alienation is used in the section heading, please wikilink it in the text body somewhere (which requires addition).
• I find the lack of discussion of the relation between immortality and undead, outside of the footnote, glaring. Further, the article doesn't even mention the word magic. The entire genre of fantasy is given a very short nod in this article, suggesting ample opportunity for expansion. But the discussion of Digital immortality is also lacking - the section on "Technological [means]" needs expansion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I have addressed some of this, and will do some more expanding later (I'll have to review the sources again first). In the meantime: is there anything in particular you think is missing? I don't recall any sources discussing the connection between immortality and undeath itself in depth (though using vampires as examples of immortals is not all that uncommon), but I might be misremembering. Both fantasy and digital immortality should be possible to cover quite a bit more than they are at present, though I'm a bit wary of focusing too much on those aspects since the sources discuss science fiction much more than they do fantasy (just compare the lengths of the "Immortality" entries in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction vs. The Encyclopedia of Fantasy—the former is more than three times as long as the latter) and digital immortality is only one method where the bulk of the material should probably be at other articles such as Digital immortality and Mind uploading in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I am sure you checked what the Greenwood E of SF and F is saying, and I know sometimes what we think should be in is not discussed. I am not saying the discussion of undead and immortality through magic needs to be long, but I am sure we can have at least a few sentences on such topics. Checking Fantasy encyclopedias and sources here might be a good idea. Here is an academic source that at the very least, in the snippet view, does connect the concept of the undead to the immortality (also [1]?). This seems promising for something on magic and immortality (snippet: "protagonists of these novels invariably become disillusioned with their acquired immortality"). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I have expanded the discussion of undeath, digital immortality, and magic somewhat. Take a look. TompaDompa (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. I mean, I'd write a lot more but it would be OR :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment: I wouldn't use the relative sizes of the SFE and FE to determine due weight. The FE was last updated in 1999, while the SFE grows every day. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. That's not how I came to the conclusion that sources cover immortality in science fiction more than they do immortality in fantasy, I just thought it would be a good example to illustrate it. One might also note that the "immortality" entry in 1993 edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction was already more than twice as long as the corresponding entry in the 1997 The Encyclopedia of Fantasy is, so the ongoing expansion of the SFE is not the whole explanation for the disparity. TompaDompa (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Query from Z1720

@TompaDompa: This PR has been open since December, and the last comment was over a month ago. Are you still interested in receiving comments in this PR? If so, I suggest seeking out new reviewers who have written FA articles similar to this one, or posting on Wikiprojects asking for reviewers. If not, can you close this PR? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there are any WP:Featured articles similar to this one, unfortunately, but I have reached out to some editors that might be able to help. TompaDompa (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)