Talk:Comets in fiction/GA2

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

Reviewer: Cessaune (talk · contribs) 05:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this. It'll probably take about two weeks. Thanks! Cessaune  [ talk ]   05:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ? TompaDompa (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was very busy, both on enwiki and offline. Will be done by 7:00 UTC on Feb 3. Cessaune   [ talk ]   15:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) My eyes hurt. Red and blue everywhere. I don't know what to focus on. I find the prose very hard to read because of this. That said, Venus in fiction and Sun in fiction, if I recall correctly, were TFAs in the past, and they look the exact same. And, at the very least, either the people are notable enough to already their own article, or the fiction they wrote is notable enough to already have its own article. I'm not going to do the work of figuring out whether or not each and every individual red-linked book is worthy of a mention outside of their author's bio, but I would imagine that not all of them deserve a standalone article. For the purposes of this GA review, I'm just going to ignore that fact.
 * 2) Are there any more images? The image currently present in the article is great, and another one would be even better. The addition of an image of a real comet (Halley's comet, for example) would add a lot.
 * 3) The sourcing is good. I don't have anything negative to say about the prose. It's well-written.
 * Normally I have a lot to say. You have clearly put a lot of work into this article and topic. I hope to one day see the featured topic Solar system in fiction or something similar, which would require a Planet Nine in fiction article at the very least.
 * I you have no questions I will go ahead and pass this GA review. Cessaune   [ talk ]   12:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Venus in fiction and Sun in fiction were indeed WP:Today's featured article fairly recently, and Mars in fiction before that (back in August); all three were written by me, in the case of Venus in fiction together with . I am working on a Solar System in fiction WP:Good topic (for starters; I hope to be able to turn it into a WP:Featured article eventually), though I am not at present able to commit as much time to it as I would like; Planet Nine will likely be covered in a revamped version of Fictional planets of the Solar System. I added an image of Halley's Comet. Just to make sure: you did conduct a spot-check of the sources for verification and copyright issues, right? TompaDompa (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I did briefly scan all of the sources. None of them are flagged by the sourcing bot I have installed. No plagiarism or copyvio issues. All of the text is verified by the sources as far as I'm aware. Cessaune   [ talk ]   12:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Great! I ask because it occasionally comes to light that reviewers have not spot-checked the sources, and in some cases the reviews have been declared invalid (and the articles put back in the list of unreviewed nominations). Noting in the review that a spot-check has been done (or demonstrating that sources have been checked by commenting on specific issues that have come to light by doing so) can avoid a fair amount of headache for everyone involved by removing any doubt. TompaDompa (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Was there anything else? TompaDompa (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you don't have anymore questions, then the article has passed. Cessaune   [ talk ]   17:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Splendid. To finish the review, you need to replace the GAN template on the talk page with the GA template (see WP:GAN/I); it seems inappropriate for me, as the nominator, to do so. TompaDompa (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm doing it currently. What topic does this fall under? Cessaune   [ talk ]   18:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say Good articles/Language and literature (same as e.g. Mercury in fiction). TompaDompa (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yikes I'm tired. Sorry! Cessaune   [ talk ]   20:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't want to throw a wrench into the review, as I think the article is overall at GA level, but I believe I've identified some missing aspects and relevant sources (see discussions sections on the talk page above), and it would be good to address them before the review closes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll reply to the specific points in their respective talk page sections. In short, I think it is fair to say, based on the sources on the overarching topic, that the main aspects are covered at present. I nevertheless intend to expand the article somewhat in the coming few days using some additional sources I've located. TompaDompa (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)