Talk:A Honeymoon in Space/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 01:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, TompaDompa. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be reviewing this article. I look forward to working with you.

I'll start with the easy: All the images are within the public domain, so no copyright issues there. All of the images also have captions and are relevant to the topic. The addition of the alt text (while not necessary for a GA) is a good sign. ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Unorganised comments after initial read-through
I'll be assessing the GA criteria shortly. ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead may be too short to summarise the article. The analysis section, for example, is extensive, but it is only given a passing metion in the lead.
 * I usually write comparatively brief leads. I have expanded it somewhat and can expand it more, if you want me to. TompaDompa (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Link frontispiece under the infobox caption instead of under the illustations part.
 * Done. TompaDompa (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the significance of the 16th reference to Flammarion's book? The other source already verifies that he wrote about their honeymoon.
 * Flammarion married twice, and the other source doesn't mention which of the two honeymoons this was. TompaDompa (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Stableford suggests that "Had Griffith read [...]"
 * In the manual of style (MOS:CONFORM), it states that "the original capital letter [of a quote in running text] may be lower-cased". I'd suggest changing the text in this quote accordingly.
 * Done. TompaDompa (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Says Barron, ...
 * I'd change this to something more conventional, like "According to Barron".
 * Done. TompaDompa (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Criteria check

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See section above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Though I was initially sceptical about the free use status of the lengthy block quotes featured in the analysis section, they seem short enough to warrant inclusion.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Everything potentially contentious is attributed appropriately.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'll wait for your response to the above section before I pass. Otherwise, this is a very well written article without any obvious shortcomings that I can find.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'll wait for your response to the above section before I pass. Otherwise, this is a very well written article without any obvious shortcomings that I can find.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Now that the above comments have been rectified, I feel comfortable passing this article. I still feel that the lead may be a bit too small, but that seems like nitpicking at this point. Anyway, good work, TompaDompa! ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)