Talk:Imagining Mars: A Literary History/GA1

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

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 09:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to take up this review; I should be able to get some comments through in a few days. 09:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Passing 10:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Review

 * 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):
 * Contents list is well done, article follows MOS well. One thing to ask - is every redlink here warranted? There sure are a lot... If (this article is excellently written) I have any points to raise on prose, they'll be listed below
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Refs are formatted just fine, earwig comes up with 31%, pretty much just quotations from reviews. No evidence of OR found
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article is focused, everything looks fine here.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * From my reading, the coverage/balance of reviews is fair; looks NPOV to me.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * no signs of an edit war, looks fine
 * 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):
 * Only image is fair use, no probs
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Spotchecks
Sources I've checked - 1, 2 (got hold of it through my own library), 9, 10, 13. ✅ happy that this article is well sourced.

Points
That's it - this is the best written GAN I've ever seen :D
 * can we change "a couple of reviewers", to "However, some reviewers" or something similar. The original is a bit informal.
 * Done. TompaDompa (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * does smorgasbord in Morissey's review need to be in quotations?
 * I don't know if it's necessary, but I've added quotation marks. TompaDompa (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)