Talk:Earth in science fiction/GA1

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

Reviewer: FormalDude (talk · contribs) 07:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've begun reviewing the article and will post my initial comments here. –– FormalDude  talk  07:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * No problems here at all.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The lead section could be potentially 1-3 sentences longer, or have another paragraph added.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Referencing is sublime, FA quality.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Very well sourced. All sources are reliable and significant, and thoroughly attributed.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * All content is properly souced and the referencing makes it easy to verify.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Easy pass.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * I believe there is another notable theme that is not covered, which would be futuristic versions of Earth. This is partially covered by the two latter subsections of the "Themes" section, but I believe another subsection should be added covering (often dystopic) future Earths in science fiction. I can provide sources to assist with this if needed.
 * As I continued reviewing the article, I thought more about this, and figured it could go either way. I'll leave it to the nominator to decide if this is significant enough for it's own subsection. Other than that, I think the article is well-focused and provides relevant detail in all the right places.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * I've watched this page for a while, and it has been one of the best article turnarounds I've seen to date, especially in this aspect.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No major disputes, page has been generally stable for quite a while.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * I'd think something like File:A Scorched and Burnt Future Earth.jpg might be better for the lead image, but other than that, looks great!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is definitely a Good Article, and I was happy to review this nomination. Thank you for the clear effort you've put into making this article, !
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is definitely a Good Article, and I was happy to review this nomination. Thank you for the clear effort you've put into making this article, !


 * I've watchlisted this but please ping me when the review is done so that I don't miss it in my gigantic watchlist feed. TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)