Talk:Neptune in fiction/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Should be a fairly breezy review. Looks like a high-quality short article. (Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * Spelling correct, can't find anything that needs to be reworded or punctuation in the wrong place.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lead looks good to me: sums up the points efficiently and concisely. No weasel words are used as far as I can see. A tiny point: I'd recommend in "In the 1897 short story "The Star" by H. G. Wells[...]", "'The Star'" be changed to The Star, as book titles are written; that's a nitpick though.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * All source authors look trustworthy to me. All statements have a ref at the end.
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * See above.
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Earwig gives a score of 3.8%, which is more than acceptable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * Broad coverage throughout history, but doesn't go into too much detail.
 * b. (focused):
 * See above.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * Everything's suitably licensed as far as I can tell.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Captions are good, as are the ALTs.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Well-written article. I couldn't find many faults with the writing, but I notice a large number of redlinks. If all these topics can be expanded into articles, keep them: if not, and the topics aren't notable, they should be removed. Regards, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * Everything's suitably licensed as far as I can tell.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Captions are good, as are the ALTs.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Well-written article. I couldn't find many faults with the writing, but I notice a large number of redlinks. If all these topics can be expanded into articles, keep them: if not, and the topics aren't notable, they should be removed. Regards, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Captions are good, as are the ALTs.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Well-written article. I couldn't find many faults with the writing, but I notice a large number of redlinks. If all these topics can be expanded into articles, keep them: if not, and the topics aren't notable, they should be removed. Regards, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well-written article. I couldn't find many faults with the writing, but I notice a large number of redlinks. If all these topics can be expanded into articles, keep them: if not, and the topics aren't notable, they should be removed. Regards, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well-written article. I couldn't find many faults with the writing, but I notice a large number of redlinks. If all these topics can be expanded into articles, keep them: if not, and the topics aren't notable, they should be removed. Regards, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)