Talk:To the Stars (novel)/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:To the Stars (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Responses
Thanks for doing the review and for your positive above comments, much appreciated. Most of these things should not be too hard to address. I will note how I have responded to them, here below. Cirt (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Moved the Plot subsection up above the Publication history section, per above comments. Cirt (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Moved the Plot material up earlier in the WP:LEAD. Cirt (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Added more Plot info to the lede. Cirt (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Prose -- I could use some more advice about specifically where to address this. The entire article?  A specific subsection?  Just one paragraph? Nevertheless, I will try to go back through the article and do some copyediting.  Cirt (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Reception -- I have gone through several different database archives in search of different reviews of the book.  I will search some more, but in searches so far it seems that all of the book reviews I have come across were generally positive. Hopefully the possible non-existence of negative book reviews in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources will not preclude this article attaining WP:GA-quality status.  Cirt (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice work on reorganizing and redoing the lede; I think this reads much easier. For finding additional criticisms, you may have to look further than the internet. I'm sure there are sci-fi magazines that would have some comments, maybe even going back to its original publication rather than more modern reprints. I think if this article ever makes it to an FAC review, the NPOV question will definitely come up again. If you can't find more negative commentary, the balance would be to cut back on the positive commentary - and be ready to defend every quote as one that is important, not just one you happened to find. I'm still leaving this on hold until the question about the film adaptation is settled (should be easy, I assume). --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Take your time on this. Consider it on hold indefinitely (within reason, of course). --Midnightdreary (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to check in. I think if you can just clarify whether or not the film version was ever produced, you've covered enough for this article to pass GA. I might wait a few days and just fail it for now; that will give you infinite time to continue improving so that you can resubmit. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, been a bit busy lately but please wait a tad bit more, will address all this soon. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could I recommend just a simple "The film has not yet begun production as of 2008"? This is one of those spots that, I believe, would instantly stop GA status because it's such an obvious dangling question left unanswered. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Incorporated this suggestion. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work on this article. A fairly comprehensive article, despite its misleading brevity. Thanks for all your work on this! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)