Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance

Objection to GA pass
The article does not cover the majos aspects, it tells us absolutely nothing about its creation, background, place in the oeuvre of the author, printing history, translations, ...? Never mind its place in a broader history of similar works, possible inspirations, ... All we have is plot and reception, which are important aspects but don't give a reasonably complete overview of the subject at all. I believe the topic doesn't merit a GA designation as it stands. Fram (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Open a WP:GAR of you believe this to be true. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * GAR is for when an article no longer meets the GA criteria, not for when a brand new GA review is disputed. Fram (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that WT:GAN might be a better place to raise this topic. It would certainly mean that more people would see it, at least. Anyway, you say that article does not cover the major aspects of the subject matter. Would you say that's because (1) these major aspects are mentioned in the cited sources but not the article, (2) the major aspects are mentioned in sources that are not cited but should have been, (3) the major aspects are not mentioned in any available sources and the article is consequently fundamentally ineligible for WP:Good article status, or (4) some other reason I haven't thought of? TompaDompa (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a GAR coord: Fram is correct that GAR generally handles existing GAs that have fallen below the standards. The thing to do here would be to vacate the review and return the nomination to the pool. The best move right now is to raise the issue at WT:GAN so more editors can weigh in. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

GA removed per comments above and discussion at GAN, feel free to renominate when you believe it to be ready of course. Fram (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not what you were told at WT:GAN. You were told to restore the original nomination. I have now done so for you. TompaDompa (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought you might have wanted to first address the issues before starting a new GA submission. Apparently the one sentence you added (and where the part "Through the 20th century, it never saw a reprint." seems to be missing in the source given?) is sufficient in your view for all the above questions? Fram (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See my response at WT:GAN about WP:GACRNOT and see page 43 of the cited source: "Only two of the six were ever reprinted in the twentieth century: Across the Zodiac and A Plunge into Space." TompaDompa (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had missed that sentence in the reference. GACRNOT is an essay, and even then it hardly supports omitting all of this. Fram (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Omitting" implies that the information is actually found in the sources. That's the issue here—coverage of this topic, at least in sources that are easily available, is not particularly broad. WP:GACR 3a requires that the article addresses the main aspects of the topic, but what those main aspects are is determined by the sources, not editors. If e.g. translations and inspirations aren't covered in the sources, then those aren't major aspects. WP:GACRNOT being an essay does not in any way invalidate that rather fundamental point—sources determine the relative weight of the various WP:ASPECTS, editors do not. TompaDompa (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As the article had nothing at all about anything but the reception of the book, it was rather hard to determine which aspects were omitted and which don't have coverage at all. A GA review should at the very least raise these issues, and things like the place in the oeuvre (was it a debut, a later work, first foray into a genre, ...), the publisher, ... should always be covered, and e.g. the fact that it hasn't been reprinted is interesting basic info if available (as it was here). There is no problem with replying "I can't find any info on translations" after such questions are raised, but the GA review should raise the questions, and whoever wants this to be promoted to GA should try to constructively answer, instead of, well, this. Fram (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you had asked, I would have answered. You didn't—you asserted. TompaDompa (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Topsy-turvydom
I read in the article that in the opinion of one informed person, this novel "may be the earliest example of the Time in Reverse tale presented in full-fledged narrative form". There's no link for "Time in Reverse tale" (and the article to which Time Reversal redirects deals with much weightier matters than SF); but this got me wondering about other more or less literary reversals in the late 19th century. Through the Looking Glass is of course about a reversal. The only SF novel of the period that I've ever read, John Gray's Park (which deserves more in en:WP than what it now gets: two thirds of a single, compact paragraph), is about a societal reversal. Basil Hall Chamberlain's Things Japanese made a big thing out of the alleged "topsy-turvydom" of Japanese mœurs. Of course, claimed resemblances that happen to occur to some random Wikipedia editor (me) shouldn't be the basis for additions to articles, but they might be a springboard for digging around in Google Scholar or similar, which might bring material that would enrich this article. -- Hoary (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)