Talk:The Science of Dune

Notability

I've stubbed this thinking this is likely to be notable, but the reviews I found are not very reliable. A review in Los Angeles Review of Books is ok (magazine), SFBook is so-so ([1] - I'd call it an ezine; they call themselves a website...); ditto for SFcrowsnest which calls itself a magazine, but is unprofessional enough to not even lists its team members by name on its about pages ([2], [3] and on the later page, describes themselves as " a fan-run non-profit"). @Cunard - any chance you can help and dig out something to push this into the notable territory from the borderline zone I am seeing it at right now? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus (talk · contribs). Here are some sources about the book The Science of Dune:

1. Evans, Clay (2008-03-16). "Exploring 'Duniverse' of Frank Herbert". Daily Camera. Archived from the original on 2023-07-29. Retrieved 2023-07-29.

   The review notes: ""The Science of Dune," an unauthorized collection of essays on aspects of the "Duniverse," is a well-done example of the subgenre. Herbert's desert planet and the universe around it are filled with spectacularly detailed cultures, religions and politics, as well as less-fleshed-out fantastic technologies. In this volume, unabashed "Dune" fans, ranging from biologists to physicists to anthropologists, deconstruct Herbert's inventions."

2. "The Science of Dune: An Unauthorized Exploration into the Real Science behind Frank Herbert's Fictional Universe". Science News. Vol. 173, no. 12. 2008-03-22. p. 191. Archived from the original on 2023-07-29. Retrieved 2023-07-29 – via Gale.

   The review notes: "Enormous sandworms traverse the desert in Frank Herbert's 1965 science fiction classic, Dune. In the novel's appendices, Herbert provided some details about these worms but left out much of their (fictitious) physiology."

3. Hays, Carl (2007-12-15). "The Science of Dune: An Unauthorized Exploration into the Real Science behind Frank Herbert's Fictional Universe". Booklist. Vol. 104, no. 8. p. 16. Archived from the original on 2023-07-29. Retrieved 2023-07-29 – via Gale.

   The review notes: "Other essays explore the ecology of Herbert's favorite desert planet, Arrakis; the feasibility of water-conserving still-suits; and the science behind interstellar space travel. An indispensable volume for Dune fans everywhere, and another validation of Herbert's fictional universe as one of sf's towering achievements."

Cunard (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cunard Wonderful, will add this to the article shortly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Ps. Especially useful as the first two sources I found linked above that I thought reivewed this book do not, in fact, do so... facepalm. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that The Science of Dune contains a scientific analysis of the fictional concepts from the Dune franchise, such as those of the sandworms, stillsuits, and the fictional drug of melange? Source: https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Laura Roslin

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 00:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Science of Dune; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough: - See below.

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - See below.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article converted from redirect on 29 July. All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for. There are no obvious neutrality issues. The hook is both cited and interesting. QPQ has been done. The main problem is that the "Reception" section consists almost entirely of verbatim quotes. I cannot in good conscience pass this as "Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing" with such extensive use of verbatim quotes, and it seems to me to go against at least the spirit of the length requirement to count these comparatively lengthy (considering the overall length of the article) quotes against the minimum 1,500 characters. Make sure to properly paraphrase and summarize the reviews and this will be good to go. Ping Piotrus. TompaDompa (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

TompaDompa, I've done some c/e. Please note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Books guide specifically states that the reception section should "quote the opinions of book reviewers" --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, and there's a limit to how much can be done with such a brief review as the one in Science News for instance (WP:LIMITED), but we should still strive to summarize the sources in our own words where possible. WP:DYK says that the emphasis at DYK is on new and original content, after all. Anyway, I've done some further editing myself and find the article to now be ready. TompaDompa (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)