Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by TompaDompa (talk). Self-nominated at 05:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Bellona's Husband: A Romance; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: @TompaDompa: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jack4576 (talk · contribs) 06:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    The prose is clear, concise, and grammatically correct. It seems understandable to a broad audience with enough knowledge about literature and sci-fi themes.
    b. (
    lists
    )    :
    The article does have a lead section that introduces the topic and the layout appears well-organized. The style of writing avoids overly complex phrases and seems to avoid editorializing or making judgments.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    references included
    b. (citations to
    reliable sources
    )    :
    sources are reliable
    c. (OR):
    Sample of sources have been checked and verified. Quotes from reviewers are accurate
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    No Copyvio
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    The article covers the main aspects of the topic. It discusses the novel's synopsis, its reception both during its time of publication and in later years. It provides important details about the plot, the characters, and the themes of the novel.
    b. (focused):
    The article seems to stay focused on the novel itself, avoiding unnecessary details. The synopsis may be a bit extensive, but it seems justified given the unusual elements of the plot.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article represents viewpoints fairly and without apparent bias. It quotes both positive and negative reviews from the time of the novel's publication and incorporates modern critical perspectives. It doesn't appear to favor any specific interpretation over another and lets the reader make their own judgments based on the presented facts.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    no edit wars
  6. 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):
    Given this book is in public domain, the article would be improved by a cover, any accompanying illustrations, or photo of the author. I've added cover myself to bring this to GA
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    as above
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Objection to GA pass

The article does not cover the majos aspects, it tells us absolutely nothing about its creation, background, place in the oeuvre of the author, printing history, translations, ...? Never mind its place in a broader history of similar works, possible inspirations, ... All we have is plot and reception, which are important aspects but don't give a reasonably complete overview of the subject at all. I believe the topic doesn't merit a GA designation as it stands.

Fram (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Open a
WP:GAR of you believe this to be true. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
GAR is for when an article no longer meets the GA criteria, not for when a brand new GA review is disputed.
Fram (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I would suggest that
WP:Good article status, or (4) some other reason I haven't thought of? TompaDompa (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Speaking as a GAR coord: Fram is correct that GAR generally handles existing GAs that have fallen below the standards. The thing to do here would be to vacate the review and return the nomination to the pool. The best move right now is to raise the issue at WT:GAN so more editors can weigh in. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA removed per comments above and discussion at GAN, feel free to renominate when you believe it to be ready of course.

Fram (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

This is not what you were told at
WT:GAN. You were told to restore the original nomination. I have now done so for you. TompaDompa (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I thought you might have wanted to first address the issues before starting a new GA submission. Apparently the one sentence you added (and where the part "Through the 20th century, it never saw a reprint." seems to be missing in the source given?) is sufficient in your view for all the above questions?
Fram (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
See my response at
WP:GACRNOT and see page 43 of the cited source: "Only two of the six were ever reprinted in the twentieth century: Across the Zodiac and A Plunge into Space." TompaDompa (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, I had missed that sentence in the reference. GACRNOT is an essay, and even then it hardly supports omitting all of this.
Fram (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
"Omitting" implies that the information is actually found in the sources. That's the issue here—coverage of this topic, at least in sources that are easily available, is not particularly broad.
WP:ASPECTS, editors do not. TompaDompa (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
As the article had nothing at all about anything but the reception of the book, it was rather hard to determine which aspects were omitted and which don't have coverage at all. A GA review should at the very least raise these issues, and things like the place in the oeuvre (was it a debut, a later work, first foray into a genre, ...), the publisher, ... should always be covered, and e.g. the fact that it hasn't been reprinted is interesting basic info if available (as it was here). There is no problem with replying "I can't find any info on translations" after such questions are raised, but the GA review should raise the questions, and whoever wants this to be promoted to GA should try to constructively answer, instead of, well, this.
Fram (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
If you had asked, I would have answered. You didn't—you asserted. TompaDompa (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topsy-turvydom

I read in the article that in the opinion of one informed person, this novel "may be the earliest example of the Time in Reverse tale presented in full-fledged narrative form". There's no link for "Time in Reverse tale" (and the article to which

Time Reversal redirects deals with much weightier matters than SF); but this got me wondering about other more or less literary reversals in the late 19th century. Through the Looking Glass is of course about a reversal. The only SF novel of the period that I've ever read, John Gray's Park (which deserves more in en:WP than what it now gets: two thirds of a single, compact paragraph), is about a societal reversal. Basil Hall Chamberlain's Things Japanese made a big thing out of the alleged "topsy-turvydom" of Japanese mœurs. Of course, claimed resemblances that happen to occur to some random Wikipedia editor (me) shouldn't be the basis for additions to articles, but they might be a springboard for digging around in Google Scholar or similar, which might bring material that would enrich this article. -- Hoary (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance/GA2
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 09:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I quite enjoyed reading this article. I take the strict rather than lax view of 'breadth' in the GACR (and, in the general rather than specific case, agree with Fram about the implications of the lax view), but I think this is generally very close to being a GA. My thoughts:

  • The lead is remarkably short, and should reasonably be two or possibly three full paragraphs. This is the most serious concern -- "complies with the MOS on leads" is a much more objective criterion than "broad", and one obviously rather than debatably not yet in compliance. The most intuitive way this would work out to me is "first paragraph handling the synopsis and second handling the publication + reception", but book leads can be flexible and there could be a few ways to handle it.
  • I think it is in-scope to put some more info in "Publication history" about the author (roughly: how many other books did he publish in general, was the pseudonym used again after this, if possible was this a typical or atypical example of his work). I recognize this is going to be a borderline call because the article is now an FA, but Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication#Publication history looked about the same before it was an FA, so I think can be reasonably argued to present GA expectations just as well, and includes such context. I completely respect that this is about the book and not the author, but I think this limited information specifically is closer to what would be expected in the book article.
  • Similarly, it seems worthwhile to include a little detail about the publisher, as they're now defunct and the name won't necessarily be recognizable. Our article clarifies at the time they were one of the largest and best-known publishers in the world -- it seems worthwhile to clarify this poorly-received work came from a major house.
  • I noticed Hoary's comments on talk about the "time in reverse" narrative. Given that this is a term-of-art for which we don't have a dedicated article, this quote might be better paraphrased to note Clute is describing it as the first example of the aging-backwards literary device (I think?), rather than just giving the raw text.

Comments broadly debatable; the lead is the most important thing currently holding up promotion, but there are a lot of ways to handle it. The bones of the article are excellent, and I hope to promote this very soon. Vaticidalprophet 09:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I usually write comparatively brief leads. I have now expanded it somewhat and could expand it more, if you want me to. I would note that the lead is now >10% of the word count of the body, which I would consider fairly lengthy (more than twice the proportion found in the
WP:Original research or including a bunch of raw data from sources on the author and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions. I have also not added anything about the publisher, seeing as the sources basically just name-check it anyway (and I consider the publisher a non-defining aspect of this and pretty much every other book). TompaDompa (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bellona%27s_Husband:_A_Romance&oldid=1206235022"