Talk:Asteroids in fiction/GA1

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

Nominator:

Reviewer: Ghosts of Europa (talk · contribs) Hello! I've enjoyed your previous articles on planets and the Sun in fiction. Looking forward to reviewing this! 04:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

This is a very entertaining and educational article!


 * No edit warring.
 * Good images with captions and permissive licenses.
 * Neutral.
 * This does a great job providing enough scientific background for me to understand these topics, without going overboard with detail. It remains clear and focused throughout.
 * It could use a working definition of "asteroid". The wikilink to asteroid is kind of misleading. That article says an asteroid orbits within the inner Solar System, but this article uses a broader definition that includes asteroids from the Oort cloud and other Solar Systems (e.g. in The Empire Strikes Back).
 * That's a rabbit hole I would prefer not going down. Part of the explanation is that the sources of course do not stay strict with their definitions. Asteroids in other systems and in the Oort cloud are really anomalies in this context, and I've tried to make that clear in the text of the article. If you want me to I could remove the Oort cloud example, though I do think it adds value to the article. I could perhaps define asteroids as "medium-sized rocks in space" or something along those lines, but I think that raises more questions than it answers, and I think a plain link to asteroid is better. I really don't want to get into the details about dwarf planets, minor planets, and so on here—it gets very confusing very fast for the average reader, and is not necessary to understand the topic of fictional depictions of asteroids. TompaDompa (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair point on risking excessive detail. I found the Oort cloud reference a bit disorienting, but I can't claim the article would be better without it. If you think a full definition would be too messy, maybe include a footnote for the Oort cloud example, or an introductory clause, or say something like "asteroid-like objects from the Oort cloud"? I don't know my astronomy well enough to offer a clear solution. In any case, this isn't worth holding the GA over :) Ghosts of Europa (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The prose is definitely GA quality, and I didn't catch any errors. You don't have to change anything for this review!
 * That said, if you don't mind some feedback, I think this article is more difficult to read than it needs to be. It uses some very complex sentence structures, and it often discusses multiple works in a single sentence when it's not clear they're tightly linked. Personally, I find this readability script from Phlsph7 extremely helpful. Here's how I would split up a complex sentence without radically rewriting it:
 * Later works mostly recognize that the individual asteroids are very far apart—the average distance between them being comparable to the Earth–Moon distance—and accordingly pose little danger to spacecraft, though this need not necessarily be the case in asteroid fields outside of our Solar System -> Later works mostly recognize that the individual asteroids are very far apart: the average distance between two asteroids is similar to the distance between Earth and the Moon. Accordingly, asteroid belts pose little danger to spacecraft, although this is not necessarily the case outside of our Solar System.
 * Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No copyvio concerns. Earwig gives a 13% match, almost certainly just because of all the proper name titles.
 * Well cited with no OR. I spot checked 15 citations and found no issues of plagiarism, source-text integrity, unsourced claims, or anything else.

Great work! Ghosts of Europa (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)