Talk:Journey Through the Impossible
![]() | Journey Through the Impossible received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Journey Through the Impossible has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 20, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Voyage à travers l’Impossible from fr.wikipedia. |
![]() | A fact from Journey Through the Impossible appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 July 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Journey Through the Impossible/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 01:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, comments below. Nice job so far, very few changes to make it GA.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- No copyvios, spelling and grammar okay, and prose flows well. There is a tendency to use words like "thus", which gives the impression of OR. This might be an incorrect conclusion, but since the sources are mostly hard copy, with no on-line links, it is impossible to ascertain. Lead goes over all separate aspects covered in the body of the article; the layout, word choice, and covering a fictional topic are fine. There are no lists.
- Good catches. I don't think there was any OR, but the text was definitely ambiguous enough to give that impression. I've rewritten the potential problem spots.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nice corrections. Issues are gone.
- Good catches. I don't think there was any OR, but the text was definitely ambiguous enough to give that impression. I've rewritten the potential problem spots.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- No copyvios, spelling and grammar okay, and prose flows well. There is a tendency to use words like "thus", which gives the impression of OR. This might be an incorrect conclusion, but since the sources are mostly hard copy, with no on-line links, it is impossible to ascertain. Lead goes over all separate aspects covered in the body of the article; the layout, word choice, and covering a fictional topic are fine. There are no lists.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- There are some peacock terms in the lead and reception section. The reception section also appears to make the play more successful than the sources support.
- Thank you for catching those — I can see how those terms could sound like peacocks. I've also done my best to clarify the difference between popular (i.e. financial) success and critical success, since the play received more of the former than the latter.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- All corrected. nice job
- Thank you for catching those — I can see how those terms could sound like peacocks. I've also done my best to clarify the difference between popular (i.e. financial) success and critical success, since the play received more of the former than the latter.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- There are some peacock terms in the lead and reception section. The reception section also appears to make the play more successful than the sources support.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Excellent use of images, all are public domain.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- The use of some verbiage is a minor issue, but significant enough to need to be addressed. The neutrality issue is also not incredibly significant, but enough to be problematic. This is very close.
- After correction of minor issues, this is now a GA.
- The use of some verbiage is a minor issue, but significant enough to need to be addressed. The neutrality issue is also not incredibly significant, but enough to be problematic. This is very close.
- Pass/Fail:
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Journey Through the Impossible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105035925/http://www.jules-verne.eu/Voy_impossible.html to http://www.jules-verne.eu/Voy_impossible.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105035925/http://www.jules-verne.eu/Voy_impossible.html to http://www.jules-verne.eu/Voy_impossible.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105035925/http://www.jules-verne.eu/Voy_impossible.html to http://www.jules-verne.eu/Voy_impossible.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia good articles
- Media and drama good articles
- GA-Class Theatre articles
- Low-importance Theatre articles
- WikiProject Theatre articles
- GA-Class science fiction articles
- Mid-importance science fiction articles
- WikiProject Science Fiction articles
- Pages translated from French Wikipedia
- Wikipedia Did you know articles