Talk:A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont among the Planets

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont among the Planets/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 19:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 00:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this review; it will be used in the WikiCup and the ongoing nominations backlog drive. Please consider participating in the latter. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

A neat little article. I wanted to know more about Bleiler's reasoning behind the comment that "one might have expected the story to have been written a generation or so earlier", and the literary tradition Clute felt it belonged to, but sadly the sources yielded nothing of the sort. I checked those sources and a couple of others like Sargent (where the original link may be dead?), and found nothing untoward with OR or plagiarism. The only thing I'd like to see before I promote it, TompaDompa, is a quick summary of the "reception/analysis" section in the lead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The coverage in the sources is indeed regrettably sparse. I really wish Walker had drawn the connection between planets being more advanced further from the Sun and the early versions of the nebular hypothesis of Solar System formation that held that the planets are older the further out they are (a connection I have seen made by others in science-fiction contexts), but unfortunately I cannot add that to this article without running afoul of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I have added a brief summary of the "Reception and analysis" section to the WP:LEAD beyond what was already there about the book falling into obscurity (which I think is really the main point). I don't particularly want to get into subjective assessments of quality in the lead when we really only have Bleiler's opinion to go on; it seems dubious from a WP:DUE perspective. TompaDompa (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont among the Planets (1873) was not reprinted for 145 years?

• Source: See the "Publication history" section.

• ALT1: ... that following the cancellation of a planned second edition, A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont among the Planets (1873) was not reprinted until 2018? Source: See the "Publication history" section.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Wrinkle the duck
• Comment: Feel free to mix and match phrasing between ALT0 and ALT1.

Improved to Good Article status by TompaDompa (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 25 past nominations.

TompaDompa (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC).

• Will review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Newly promoted GA. Looks accurate. Nice work. Approving. BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)