Talk:Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 17:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I hope to be able to review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 17:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend moving the publication history section above the cultural impact section. That'll provide a bit more context for "was picked up by Gizmodo shortly prior to its intended publication" from the beginning of the impact material.
 * Usually it goes after, but I see your argument here, so I moved it up. Vaticidalprophet 13:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead mentions Artnet by name as one of the publications that picked up the out of context quote, but the body doesn't refer to it by name. Recommend referring to Artnet by name in the body, rather than just calling it an "other"
 * Named in body. Vaticidalprophet 13:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is From Quarks to Quasars RS? It looks like a two-person outfit.  Trosper at least appears to be a seasoned science journalist, but Creighton, the one who wrote this, appears to be a grad student specializing in environmental science?
 * I think I'm inclined to call it good enough. Jolene Creighton is a fairly significant science journalist now (actually, I should probably link her there). FQTQ had writers aside from its two editors (looking at the first article I clicked from the sidebar, it wasn't written by either editor), so appears to have had a genuine editorial process and attracted freelancers. Vaticidalprophet 02:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The FQTQ ref lacks the publisher in the citation
 * Fixed! I keep forgetting those, for some reason. Vaticidalprophet 02:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Other references look fine, and the sole image has a good enough FUR

Other than those, this looks like it's in pretty good shape. I'm a fan of that Foust quotation. Hog Farm Talk 02:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , have replied to all these points. What are your thoughts? <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 13:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Omitted viewpoint?
I note the omission of a potentially important aspect of SETI, namely epidemiology. Because it is omitted from the article, I can't tell if it was also omitted from the book itself. Let me make clear that I am not only considering the science of epidemiology - noting that H.G. Wells' "The War of the Worlds" ultimately credited the defeat of the fictional Martian invasion to their lack of resistance to Earth micro-organisms - but the social and cultural effects that concern about this subject could have on an alien civilization's willingness to attempt or permit communication or actual contact with other planets. Look at our own recent social and cultural responses to COVID-19. What about the subject of allowing for an alien civilization's having experienced something similar within their own world's context, or perhaps actually having barely survived an adverse epidemic experience in a prior extra-planetary contact? Or their fear of it happening if they take hypothetical reasoning seriously? This could result in a range of responses, such as deciding never to allow such contact again (or the first time) or perhaps to react aggressively against anyone causing such a problem for them in the future. Consider the public debate that occurred in the Swedish press in the Cold War era over their destroyers' depth-charging of Soviet submarines violating their territorial waters. Some letters to the editors clearly stated that NOT doing this to NATO submarines was not true neutrality. This definitely seems to fall within the cultural or anthropological aspect of SETI, but did anyone discuss it? SvensKenR (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)