Talk:Jupiter in fiction/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Images are appropriately tagged; sources are reliable. I've read through and the text is fine; I could pass this now but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the two points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I ask how you selected the fiction that is mentioned in the article? I would guess that you only mention works that are themselves mentioned by secondary sources in their articles on Jupiter in sf, which is a reasonable approach.
 * The only actual problem I can see with the article is that it feels very listlike. I don't know that it's possible to fix this; the sources do little more than provide lists, and you have organized the article by the changing depictions of the planet as our knowledge changed, which is the only sensible way to do it.  I think there's a mild discordance in the subsection titles -- you have "Early depictions" and "Pulp era", which are chronological, but then "Jovians" is a subtopic of Jupiter, and could be carried throughout the article, and "Surface" and "Atmosphere" are both scientific subtopics.
 * The fiction was indeed selected in the way you describe, by looking at what sources on the overarching topic of Jupiter in fiction mention. I added the subheadings to text I had already written and divided into paragraphs, mostly chronologically but a bit thematically as well. I figured it would look better with subheadings than a bunch of bare paragraphs and fitted the subheadings to the text rather than vice versa, hence the slightly eclectic choice of subheadings. It would, I suppose, be possible to adjust this—the "Jovians" paragraph could be included under the "Early depictions" subheading, for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and pass this; I have a follow up comment but it doesn't affect GA status. I would suggest keeping subheadings according to a single organizing scheme; chronological would seem the most natural. The sections do feel a bit too short to me, and if you go with "Early depictions", "Pulp era", and "Modern depictions", plus the Moons section, I think there wouldn't be too much of a wall-of-text effect. But not necessary for GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)