Talk:A Voyage to Arcturus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 21:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'm a bit off my feet at the moment, may be more available later in the week. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I may leave some responses to your notes below later, but I have passed the article based on your edits. Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'll take any comments into account. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Overall

• @Chiswick Chap: After seeing your message and your editing, I thought I'd give you a little while, but I do want to tell you of my instant thought upon seeing the article: what the heck kind of structure is that

It looks like it is structured following MOS:BOOKS, but the problem is, that MOS is designed for writing Wikipedia Books - a project that basically turned Good Topics into a single downloadable format - which I believe were recently deprecated. It isn't for articles about books, which is covered by the MOS:FICTION. In particular, the plot section usually comes first and is not secondary to "Book", which is non-standard and each of its subsections should be standalone. As for separating the synopsis and chapters, unless there is some importance to having each chapter summarized, Wikipedia is not a reading guide and this should go. The Fiction MOS has a section on plot summaries that should be helpful, particularly that unless a plot summary would exceed the 750-character recommended maximum because of the work's length, it should not be broken into chapters. Also, it advises writing the synopsis or plot without breaking the fourth wall - the article currently does so by 'explaining' the plot from a real-world perspective, rather than just recounting what happens.

Many thanks for the thoughts, and for the mandate to revise the article's structure. I've replaced the "Synopsis" and "Chapters" with a single "Synopsis", told in-universe. It is a little long, but given the book's extraordinary narrative as a series of tableaux of bizarre people and places (all with strange names), one either mentions the people and places (with this result) or just says "he went to a lot of places and met a lot of people" which is basically what the "Synopsis" did before, to no useful purpose. I'm quite happy to try to shorten it further, if you can see anything that can be omitted.

The other sections are also non-standard and strangely structured: "Effect" would be "Impact", which the "Influence" sub-section can be merged into, while "Reception" likely warrants its own section, as does "Adaptations" - sequels written by others, if official, would go in that section; if unofficial, they would go under "Impact/Influence". The "Interpretation" section should really be "Analysis" and doesn't need to be broken up, as it is all analysis, just of different things, unless one field of analysis is particularly notable. "Deeper meaning" is also... well, that is what interpreting is... and besides getting rid of the subsection header, the prose should likely be written at more academic standards. I haven't given the prose more than a passing glance, yet, but the structural issues really should be worked on first. Kingsif (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That took about five seconds to implement! I've grouped 'Impact' and 'Adaptations' under 'Legacy', i.e. the result of the work, for which there is precedent. I've read through the prose again, and made some small changes, but on the whole I'm pretty happy with the style. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kingsif: - awaiting your comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Some sickness and hardware issues overcome, I have my comments. Kingsif (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kingsif: - yes, I had it too. Hope you're on the mend, be well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• It combines fantasy, philosophy, and science fiction in an exploration of the nature of good and evil and their relationship with existence. - falls into "teaser" rather than "plot summary", could this be improved.
  • Reworked.
• The second paragraph gives excessive scene-setting/world-building for a lead... not that any at all is necessary for the lead.

• The last sentence of this paragraph is good content, but has stumbling punctuation and repeats "through which", making it a run-on sentence (hard to parse) - could it be improved?

• • • Fixed.
• The last sentence (Critics...) has some subject-object agreement issues, clauses. Just some grammar tweaks needed. If this repeats through the article, I might suggest a GOCE run, but that could take some time, so perhaps a good grammar sweep is something nominator or I could take on.
  • Fixed. I've completely rewritten most of the article body so those checks shouldn't be necessary now.
• Good length for article
  • Noted.

Illustration

• Two free images, appropriately used
  • Noted.
• Infobox good
  • Noted.
• The caption of the Surtr image needs improving - it is currently talking to the reader rather than accompanying the image
  • Fixed.

Prose

• Background section is fine, though if there is a way to make it clear only Jedburgh is in the Borders, that would be nice - the fact that London obviously isn't, is what makes that confusing
  • Fixed.
• While it is acceptable to have the publication history section so early in the article, it may need some rephrasing/additional information to give appropriate context for cutting passages. It could go between the analysis and reception sections, as media articles now are often structured vaguely chronologically.
  • I've moved it after the Synopsis.
• May I suggest replacing the first "the novel" in the publication history section with "A Vovage to Arcturus" (swapping it with the title as used three sentences later), and then actually mentioning the title when it is critically discussed at the start of the analysis section.
  • Done.
• Despite comments below, the WP:PLOT section does not need references. Is there a need to use quotations?
  • Removed them. I've slimmed down the quotations.
• Wikilinking to something that is not a work title, in a work title, is wrong (A Voyage to the Arctic in the Whaler Aurora) - add that the work refers to the Aurora if relevant, but a work title is a work title, not a sentence (compare to there being no article on a person so you link each part to the disambigs for their first and last names... inappropriate wikilinking).
  • Removed.
• A different wikilink issue with the Four Noble Truths - WP:EASTEREGG here. Add an explanatory sentence or footnote saying that the description refers to the Four Noble Truths if relevant.
  • Removed.
• I don't think the bullet list is necessary - the section discusses the analysis of the threefold function, shouldn't present it. A prose list should be fine.
  • Fixed.
• Wikilink Christian allegory to whichever article at the disambig is most appropriate (as suggested by the existence of the disambig, it is ambiguous - worse when the sentence goes on to say it's "clear"...)
  • Done.
• This last analysis paragraph should probably be expanded on, so it isn't just a jargon-dump of some quite complex theoretical stuff. I have written some analysis sections before, but probably wouldn't suggest them as a template. They are not the easiest thing to write, especially finding balance of detail to explain for a layperson without becoming an essay. Summary style is good everywhere but key here. An explicit reference to Pilgrim's Progress should be made, also, as it seems to refer to A Voyage to Arcturus. It's just hard to follow.
  • Reworded, and added.
• In the reception section, there is mixing of the fictional and real, particularly in the sentence In Moorcock's view, although Maskull seems to be commanded to do whatever is needed to save his soul, in a kind of "Nietzschean Pilgrim's Progress", Lindsay does not fall into fascism. - Maskull being a character but mentioned in a real way between several real people without any qualifier. Saying Maskull is a character, as well as adding some real world context to "seems to be commanded..." should happen - probably alongside restating that Lindsay is the author, here.
  • Fixed.
• Wikilink Lewis in the reception section as his article is not currently linked in the article body (links should not be unnecessarily duplicated, but lead and body considered separate)
  • Done.
• Wikilink and italicize SF Site
  • Done both.
• Pretty sure no apostrophe should be used in "book's strength" per object possession rules, though this does differ in some regional variations. Article appears to be using Brit Eng, which (last I was taught) doesn't have the apostrophe there. Descriptively, this has probably changed, but I'll leave this comment anyway.
  • It's certainly a genitive ("of the book") so we have no option in modern British English but to use the apostrophe.
• The sentence mentioning Wells and Verne becomes run-on, and should probably explicitly say that these are earlier authors.
  • Done, and reworded.
• For the last paragraph of the reception section: I know it feels right to use present tense for the criticism, I still automatically do it, but Wikipedia has taken to insisting on past tense.
  • Done.
• The list fragment finding it more powerful, more mythical but less of a story than should have an Oxford comma
  • Added.
• The wikilinking of Tolkein's frame stories is also inappropriate - at most, it should just cover the "who used frame stories" text.
  • Fixed.
• I'm struggling to describe the issues here, so: I think did not approve of the frame story machinery that Lindsay had used – the back-rays and the crystal torpedo ship would be better as "did not approve of the frame story machinery, the back-rays and the crystal torpedo ship, that Lindsay had used". It makes the machinery less of an afterthought, makes it clear what refers to what, and prevents the clause punctuation (dash followed by semi-colon for different uses) from causing confusion.
  • Done.
• Using most of a sentence to define an oratorio, when it is wikilinked and irrelevant, is unnecessary.
  • Fixed.
• "biblical quotations" doesn't need to be in quotations; neither does "nature and meaning" - simple, common, terms
  • Fixed.
• Write out the numericals in the last sentence of the Impact section as words
  • Done.
• If The Flight to Lucifer is not a sequel proper, it should not be in the infobox
  • Removed.

Sources/Verifiability

• Some inaccessible but taken on good faith based on the others.
  • Thank you.

• Omnitopian Thoughts appears to be a fan blog, as well as defunct since 2019 without any archive of its about page - not passing WP:RS to me. The source and its information should be removed unless you have any information about it that would help?
  • Replaced the ref, there are multiple sources we could use for the very basic mention of Norse myth.

• Good formatting.
  • Thank you.

Stability

• History and talk page clear.
  • Noted.

Broadness

• I don't know much about the topic, but have done some quick checks, and it seems to cover what is known of the production (publication), as well as main points of the responses.
  • Noted.
• As noted above, some wordier detail to help with the analysis would benefit coverage here
  • Reworked.

Copyvio

• It looks like Blackwells have been using the Wikipedia lead as their product description - not copyvio, but can appear so to people with less experience checking, so this should be noted on the talkpage using Template:Backwards copy. (Check)
  • Done.

• Possibly the same case with Amazon, but since their web page isn't dated, we can't know if it wasn't the other way around. Given the Blackwells backwards copy, chances are Amazon took it from there. Now I say this, though, could the lead issues - vaguely promotional, which I didn't worry about as the reception does seem that overwhelmingly positive and I asked for the "teaser" to be rephrased - be because it was originally the marketing blurb? This may need more investigation. I don't know if a slightly different Amazon entry for a different version makes me more or less concerned.
  • It looks as if they've lifted the first paragraph from us, minus our citations. It isn't at all Amazon's usual style, by the way. I've slapped a backward copy notice on them as well.

• Some parenthesis explanations have been lifted from the source, and are long and creatively original enough to warrant quotation - from Omnitopian Thoughts - see above about this not being RS
  • Well, the parenthesis about sorbing being an "aggressive absorption of another's personality..." was already present on 7 February 2010, many years before the blog, so they copied from us.

• The rest of the check is quotations and some translation service using part of the article (too small to need a backwards copy notice) as an example
  • Noted.

Comments by others

Shouldn't plot summary/synopsis be referenced to something? Even the work itself? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It is. Each chapter is numbered as in the book, so we have book references right there. Regardless of what I think of the repetition, I've added an sfn ref for each chapter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)