Talk:Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 23:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 11:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
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. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.
- Infobox/Lead: there is no information on publishing location and country. Is there any reason not to list the print ISBNs?
- Added country. I don't know if it's technically possible to list multiple ISBNs (I tried and couldn't figure it out), and I think it's better to list the single-volume ebook one if we can only include one. TompaDompa (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The print ISBN 9781440866166 seems to cover both volumes? Anyway, according to Template_talk:Infobox_book/Archive_8#Request_to_allow_multiple_ISBNs, it seems including just one random ISBN is the current standard, so you can keep that as is. While we are on the topic of metadata, is there an external source for the library classifications or are these just listed in the book? —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- They can be found in the book itself, see https://www.google.com/books?id=ikXPEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1911. The Library of Congress one can also be found at https://www.loc.gov/item/2020052118 (linked in the "External links" section). TompaDompa (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The print ISBN 9781440866166 seems to cover both volumes? Anyway, according to Template_talk:Infobox_book/Archive_8#Request_to_allow_multiple_ISBNs, it seems including just one random ISBN is the current standard, so you can keep that as is. While we are on the topic of metadata, is there an external source for the library classifications or are these just listed in the book? —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Added country. I don't know if it's technically possible to list multiple ISBNs (I tried and couldn't figure it out), and I think it's better to list the single-volume ebook one if we can only include one. TompaDompa (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- History: there could be a little more context/background on Westfahl (where is he from, how did he become a SF scholar, how old is he) and on the publisher. Do we know why they published this book? (do they publish a lot of encyclopedias, a lot of SF or a lot of Westfahl)?
- Added that Westfahl was born in 1951. For the rest, I don't know. The sources (reviews, really) on the book don't really go into it, and I don't want to go too much off-topic. I think links to Gary Westfahl and ABC-Clio/Greenwood]] should suffice. TompaDompa (talk)
- Who the author and publisher are (a sentence or two, not just the name) is not offtopic at all in an article about a book, but necessary background. Don't make people click links (MOS:NOFORCELINK, even if that isn't part of WP:GA?) to find out extremely basic facts like that Westfahl is American. The publisher is a redirect to a complicated article; it would be quite helpful to state that they are the same American Greenwood that published Westfahl's previous encyclopaedia, even if they are part of British company Bloomsbury these days. There are likely many sources on author or company that you can use here; you are not limited to using only book reviews. —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Added Westfahl's nationality and that Greenwood is the same imprint that published The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Westfahl was already described as a
science fiction scholar who had previously written extensively on the subject and edited The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy (2005)
, which I think is pretty much all the context that is needed. As for publishers, I find that it is very uncommon for details about them to improve understanding of the topic for articles about individual works (or series). I know I'm not limited to using book reviews, but the article should still reflect the balance of weight given to different aspects of the topic (i.e. the book) by sources on that topic (WP:PROPORTION:An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
). When those sources don't deem certain pieces of background information relevant enough to warrant mentioning, that indicates that the info is comparatively tangential and not necessary for us to mention either. TompaDompa (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Added Westfahl's nationality and that Greenwood is the same imprint that published The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Westfahl was already described as a
- Who the author and publisher are (a sentence or two, not just the name) is not offtopic at all in an article about a book, but necessary background. Don't make people click links (MOS:NOFORCELINK, even if that isn't part of WP:GA?) to find out extremely basic facts like that Westfahl is American. The publisher is a redirect to a complicated article; it would be quite helpful to state that they are the same American Greenwood that published Westfahl's previous encyclopaedia, even if they are part of British company Bloomsbury these days. There are likely many sources on author or company that you can use here; you are not limited to using only book reviews. —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Added that Westfahl was born in 1951. For the rest, I don't know. The sources (reviews, really) on the book don't really go into it, and I don't want to go too much off-topic. I think links to Gary Westfahl and ABC-Clio/Greenwood]] should suffice. TompaDompa (talk)
- Contents:
Following this is eleven thematic essays
grammar seems off- Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- 250 entries does sound like very little if some of them are non-SF like Shakespeare, the Odyssey or the Divine Comedy. Is there any indication why Westfahl would include Shakespeare? Do you know how many articles are on individual works/authors/subgenres?
- As Hassler says, Westfahl's view of what belongs science fiction is a very inclusive one (
his Nation is sf, and it includes all good writing from Shakespeare to Milton and back to Dante and Virgil and Lucan
). As for the number of entries, I could in theory simply count them from the list of entries at the beginning of the encyclopedia but I don't think it would really add much. TompaDompa (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- As Hassler says, Westfahl's view of what belongs science fiction is a very inclusive one (
- Reception: I don't really mind the Wikidata links, but are all of these people really notable? (I have a Wikidata entry and I am not notable).
- Probably, I think. I haven't looked that closely into it. TompaDompa (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems Svitavsky thinks that an encyclopaedia of SF is still overdue even after this publication, but it is not very clear.
- Svitavsky is a bit unclear on this point, yes. TompaDompa (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not a fan of linking to Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (disambiguation), as that is just a navigational page. You seem to intend to link to a list of SF encyclopaedias, not all of which would typically called "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction". In fact, "Anatomy of Wonder" is not listed on that page.
- Yes, it's a courtesy link for navigation. If there were a list of science fiction encyclopedias article, I would have linked to that instead (and there is an argument to be made that it should be moved to that title). TompaDompa (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The current link seems quite unhelpful and misleading in that place, I would remove it as long as "Anatomy of Wonder" is not on the target page. —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, added WP:REDLINK to list of science fiction encyclopedias instead. TompaDompa (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The current link seems quite unhelpful and misleading in that place, I would remove it as long as "Anatomy of Wonder" is not on the target page. —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a courtesy link for navigation. If there were a list of science fiction encyclopedias article, I would have linked to that instead (and there is an argument to be made that it should be moved to that title). TompaDompa (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am glad that Hassler's review points out that the book seems to carry a lot of Westfahl's personal opinion; the Content section seemed to me to indicate that some non-standard choices were made.
- Do we know anything at all about sales?
- I haven't found anything, no. TompaDompa (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there anybody comparing this with The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy and why did Westfahl need to write another one?
- The comparison that has been made is that this book was written entirely by Westfahl rather than by a large number of different people and that the contents are new rather than reused. TompaDompa (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Source spotchecks
[edit]Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1244853015
- Svitavski [1]
- 1a, 1c fine. Maybe you can use the mention of comics and games in the Content section?
- Welsh [2]
- 2b, 2g fine.
- Hassler: could not access. And we should have an article on him, so I agree with a red link for him.
- Farmer [3]
- 4c, 4f fine. There are a few numbers here that could be helpful in the Content section (50+ authors, 50+ books).
Source checks clear.
General comments and GA criteria
[edit]Good Article review progress box
|
- Prose is fine, minor comments above.
- Lead is a bit short, but covers most of the article.
- Refs are fine, even if the cited reviews are mostly quite short.
- No copyvio detected.
- Broadness: slightly more background on Westfahl would be nice, see above.
- Just about enough now.
- No issues with neutrality or stability.
- Book cover illustration is appropriate fair use.
A nice article, I have only a few minor points. @TompaDompa:, over to you. —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
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.