| Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
| 1. Well-written:
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
|
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research:
|
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
|
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
|
- Why are both the first and second editions of Lukkala cited, but in the same cite? Do they contain different information? Could we just keep the second edition, or does the first have details missing in the second?
- Similar question about the two works by Nahin, which appear similar but not identical?
- Ditto. TompaDompa (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- For these two, if the different editions/works are relaying different information, they should be split into separate cites, and each one only used where its specific information is relevant. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Looked into it a bit more. For Loukkala, they are mostly interchangeable apart from the stuff about Interstellar which is naturally only in the newer edition. For Nahin, the sources are basically interchangeable (and only cited at one place in the article). I think both of these are acceptable instances of WP:REFBUNDLE; I could perhaps split them into separate citations and cite both in each instance apart from the Interstellar one, but that would just add a bunch of visual clutter to no real benefit. For sources available through Google Books, which sometimes makes previously-accessible content inaccessible without warning and for which archiving services work poorly, there is real benefit to this kind of mild redundancy. TompaDompa (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If they're interchangeable, then why cite the older editions at all? —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- For Luokkala, I found the older edition before I found the newer one. I don't quite recall, but I'm guessing the reason I didn't replace the older edition with the newer one is that it's not entirely easy to tell at a glance whether the older edition contains material absent from the newer one as the paragraphs have been shifted around quite a bit between the two (and I may very well have alternated between which one I used at any given time as Google Books is as mentioned fickle). For Nahin, they aren't different versions of the same book, so it's not like one supersedes the other. Rather, Nahin is repeating a point across both works. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the case for the Astronomical Society of the Pacific being reliable on this topic?
- Please add publisher for 'The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction'
- Missing authors for the review of Worlds Apart
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
|
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
|
- Earwig finds nothing of concern, but hold for manual spot check.
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
- It's understandable that this article focuses mostly on science fiction. However, I'm curious if the sources used have limited its scope a little - are there any significant works of fiction outside that genre that involve black holes?
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
|
- The mentions of Heller's Leap and The Space Eater, along with a few of the other individual stories thrown in, strike me as slightly overdetailed. There are clearly tons of tertiary and secondary sources covering this topic - if a work is not mentioned by one of them, its inclusion here feels a little arbitrary. These references could be removed, or modified to add phrases like "For instance" and "for example" to make it flow more easily.
|
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
|
- No issues of stability or edit warring.
|
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
|
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
|
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
- Why is the planet image included? Seems thrown in at random.
- It's used as a visually interesting navigational aid. It serves that purpose on a bunch of pages, e.g. Sun in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm - I see why it's interesting, but I think it's more likely to confuse readers than assist them. I'd prefer if it was replaced by normal links in the 'See also' section.
- Assuming that one is removed, a second image would be helpful but is not required.
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
|
