Talk:Supernovae in fiction/GA1

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

Nominator: 21:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 08:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Will review this soon. —Kusma (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Content and prose review
I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. I'm pretty happy with the prose, but I have some broadness concerns and would like to see a bit more background information. —Kusma (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lead: short but more or less covers the topic.
 * Background: a little more background on astrophysics/history/etymology (a "nova" being a newly visible star, Tycho/Kepler, which stars can become supernova) would be nice to have here. Consider linking, for example, History of supernova observation.
 * Expanded somewhat. I want to avoid going too much off-topic here. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of the super short section headings ("Disaster"/"Sun"). "Disaster" isn't a natural companion to "induced and exploited" either.
 * I am kind of missing a mention of Cixin Liu's The Wandering Earth and its film adaptations. Is this too new for your sources?
 * It's not too new for the sources, but Stanway is the only one to mention it, saying: Recent works by Cixin Liu, such as his novella "The Wandering Earth" (2000), have also focussed on the (valid) astronomical prospect that the Sun will go through a brief but dramatic brightening known as a "helium flash" towards the end of its life. While this would be extremely short-lived in astrophysical terms, it might be enough to irradiate the Earth's surface. We believe that the Sun is likely about 5 billion years away from undergoing a helium flash, rather than the few centuries suggested by Liu, and that it will become a red giant before this occurs, but (unlike a nova) it will at least experience this evolutionary state! It seemed kind of a poor fit for the article based on that. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Added the same author's Supernova Era (2003), using the same source. TompaDompa (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is very little about the supernovae itself here, just how they would impact humanity.
 * That reflects the sources on the topic. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Other stars: Anything about the real supernovae of the past? The Martian Star-Gazers for example mentions the 1572 supernova.
 * Not that I've seen discussed by the sources, no. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Induced and exploited: again, not a fan of the heading.
 * How are the supernovae used as weapons? It seems too easy to wipe out yourself as well (as with the bomb in Life, the Universe and Everything).
 * The sources don't really go into the details much here. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Doomsday (Doctor Who)": hide the disambiguator.
 * Don't know how I missed that. Fixed. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See also: Not a fan of the massive amount of whitespace caused by and the clickable image.
 * I don't feel strongly about the template, but when I've left it out in other articles other editors have been unhappy about the effect that has on the reference list's columns. I do feel strongly about including the clickable image, though. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Does Supernova nucleosynthesis feature in any of the stories?
 * Not that I've seen discussed by the sources, no. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Source spotchecks
Looking at Special:PermanentLink/1230457162. Spotchecks passed. —Kusma (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1b: ok
 * 2p,q: ok
 * 3d,m: ok. It is technically a "blog" but Stanway looks solid.
 * Indeed. Stanway has been published in, among other things, Foundation. I raised this a few months ago at WT:SCIFI, for the record. TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 4a: ok
 * 5e: ok
 * 8: ok
 * 10: ok
 * 17: ok

General comments and GA criteria
Looks like a pass! —Kusma (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Prose is fine as discussed above. No MoS issues other than perhaps section headers, but those may be personal preference
 * References are formatted nicely. In some cases, one might wish for precise page numbers, but the page ranges are so short that it is not a real issue.
 * Sources are good, mostly science fiction studies.
 * Could not detect any OR or copyvio issues during spotchecks.
 * Broadness/neutrality scrape a pass now that at least one non-English work is included.
 * No excessive focus on anything.
 * Stable since your rewrite.
 * Image licenses are OK, and captions work. You could consider adding ALT text, but I don't have a good suggestion what to write.