Talk:Stargate literature/GA2

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

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. It's mostly well written, interesting, and enjoyable. I'm a huge Stargate fan (although I've read none of its literature), so I'm looking forward to the review. --Christine (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * One of my main concerns about the prose in this article is that the tone isn't encyclopedic enough. The lead, for example, has a very informal tone.  For one thing, the use of contractions should be avoided.  This sentence needs to be changed: There's no official word from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) about the canonicity of the Stargate written fiction.  There are examples of this kind of thing throughout the article.  I would suggest going through it and making the prose more formal.  Another issue I have is that much of the article reads like a press release.  For example, this sentence: Stargate audiobooks by Big Finish Productions, based on the long-running military science fiction television franchise Stargate.   (This sentence is also a fragment.)  Much of the prose in this article is not to the quality it needs to be at.  Another problem is that some of what's said simply makes little sense.  This, for example: She garnered a few minor awards for her novel and started writing Stargate novels behind the science idea of quantum physics.  I went back and read the source; I think what you're trying to say is that Bauer used quantum physics as the basis of the story.  The current version is not at all clear.
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * The lead needs some work. It doesn't seem to summarize the article's content like it should.  I think that most of the MOS problems are tied up with the prose problems.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * The first reference link is broken. Some of your sources don't seem to match the information they're supposed to support.  For example, ref 4 is used to support this assertion, Bits of the Ancient Egyptian myth, The Destruction of Mankind, is acknowledged in the novel's construction. but I wasn't able to find anything on the book list about this.  (BTW, this is another example of the need for clarification.  What is "The Destruction of Mankind"?  Is it an Egyptian myth?  I know very little about Egyptian mythology, other than what the show tells me, so you need to explain what you mean.)  Wikifying the author in refs 5-8 isn't necessary--at least that's my opinion.  That could just be my personal aesthetics, though. --Christine (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * I'm not sure what I think about using the novels as a source. I think that it borders on OR, especially when you discuss the differences between the McCay books and SG-1.  Perhaps a solution is not to list the novels as sources, but restructure how the novels are listed in the article.  Maybe you need a Bibliography section.  (I could see articles written about each of the novels in the first series.)  I also think that the discussion about the differences between the novels and SG-1 could be expanded, even from the one source you use.  Are there other sources that talk about it?  I suggest looking.  I have no problem with ref 9, even though it's on the Stargate webpage.  By the same token, I have no issues with using articles from a good fan site in a good article.  I suspect that for this article, they're the best sources available.  Others might take issue with it, though, and a GA-rating may be as far as you're gonna get because of it.  Ref 13 brings us to a list of the books.  It supports assertions in that paragraph, about Malcolm and the SG-A novels.  This is a problem throughout the article, something I think would be resolved if you followed my suggestion above.
 * C. No original research:
 * This is discussed above.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Discussed above, regarding the movie novels. I wonder if there's more research that needs to be done to broadened its coverage.
 * B. Focused:
 * No problem here that can't be addressed with a thorough copyedit and peer review.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * {This is an area that needs work. It has just two images at this point, and could use more.  Perhaps more books covers, or images of the various authors, if they're available (try Flickr or request that the authors donate the images themselves), or of the actors playing the roles.  I think adding images is one of more fun parts of improving an article.  Sometimes you have to be creative, and make sure you follow all the images policies.  I'd suggest this one, but only because I heart James Spader. ;)
 * I can't get more pictures from books since that would border copyright something something, and their is no images for the various authors which are free. Their is also no reason to add images of the cast members since they don't have anything to do with the literature. --TIAYN (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this article should have anymore non-free images; it already has 2 (which is one too many for my liking). The suggested image of Spader is non-free. File:SGA Reliquary.jpg needs to conform to Non-free use rationale guideline which says "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article." - it is currently being used in both Stargate Atlantis and Stargate literature, so it needs 2 separate fair use rationales. --maclean (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)c

This needs a lot of work. I'll let you work on my suggestions, and we'll go from there. --Christine (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

There has been no further activity on this article for over two weeks, so I'm failing the GA. --Christine (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)