Talk:To the Stars (novel)/GA1

GA Review

Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

For such a short article, it is surprisingly comprehensive and it was a good read. Thanks for taking the time to develop it.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Reasonable, but there are spots that fall into some excessive wordiness. I fixed one small exmaple in the lede. Give it a once-over and see if you spot other easy fixes. Of course, as you try to approach FA standards, I would consider making the plot summary a little more detailed. I do think, however, that the organization is inappropriate to the subject. It is most logical (to me) to have the plot summary discussed before publication history and the movie adaptation. Read, for example, the lede (which is a great example of following WP:LEDE, and you'll see that it takes too long for the reader to figure out what the book is about.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No problems here from what I checked. I do think you could be more careful when you choose to "double up" on footnotes. I recommend them only for potentially controversial pieces of info... is the fact that Travolta helped fund a movie likely to be challenged?
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The only thing it is missing is a sentence that explicitly states whether or not the movie adaptation was actually made (if not, why not?).
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I think that there should be some attempt at finding someone who has something negative to say about the book, just for balance. Have you found anything like that? I think similar comments on the talk page are valid.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
The only other thing you might do is drop in an image of Hubbard. It would be nice to get a cover of a first printing rather than a more modern one, but that's not a requirement.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'm putting this on hold for the standard 7 days. Let me know if you need clarification on anything I said or if you dispute my review. Thanks for working on this! --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Moved the Plot subsection up above the Publication history section, per above comments. Cirt (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the Plot material up earlier in the WP:LEAD. Cirt (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added more Plot info to the lede. Cirt (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Take your time on this. Consider it on hold indefinitely (within reason, of course). --Midnightdreary (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done Incorporated this suggestion. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]