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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This article is very well written, I have one minor quibble. Should the word cheela when first introduced in the lead have quote marks?

   That appears to have been resolved by now. =P --Twilight Helryx 16:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I was actually suggesting that they might be a useful addition, but I shall wait until the nominator returns from wikibreak. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, sorry. I thought it was the other way around. ^^" Anyway, is this something we should let the nom do (assuming he/she agrees), or can anyone add them in?--Twilight Helryx 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All online links are live. Reference # 21 [1] doesn't mention the book and I am not sure it is an RS; same for ref #22 [2], which appeasr to be a wiki; ASGF for the print source. References 1, 3 & 4 would be better formatted in the form "Forward, pp. 287-289", etc. in my opinion as unless the wikilink is clicked it is not immediately clear what the reference is. Wikilinked billion (Two instances - probably the short scale as that is the common US usage), starquakes, rejuvenation, ull (in reference 25) Y

   Several points there, I've started sections #References and #Terms. --Philcha (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, just a few minor points mentioned above, which I feel should be addressed. On hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Fine, good to go. I am happy to confirm that this article is worthy of GA status, thanks for you hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi, Jezhotwells, thanks for:

   taking on an unusual genre.

   the quick response once I was in play. --Philcha (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agreed with the objection Blink_of_an_Eye_(episode), and this diff removed the sfdebris page. If these fall, I think so does all the material about "Blink_of_an_Eye". --Philcha (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any Rs for this, mostly forum postings, twitter, etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Para removed. --Philcha (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What you mean by "ASGF for the print source" - is this an WP-speak I've missed? --Philcha (talk)
  • Sorry Philcha, I mean Assume Good Faith, an extra S crept in. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As a reader I find chapter / section titles much more useful than pages, as titles work for various editions / printings and for various languages (Dragon's Egg in 6 languages). How about "Forward: Dragon's Egg (technical)", e.g., all linking to the main "Bibliography" details. --Philcha (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I got all them. Thanks for making me thinking about this, one of these days WP will get a referencing method that will informs users as well as support WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer to avoid any explanation of the "billion" issue - for example I can't remember the book's go into this. Standard in WP is "adopt of the author's dialect", and I'm happy to use (implictly) 10^9 although I'm a Brit. How do recent UK SF authors get round this? --Philcha (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of Irish origin and am used to the original Brit usage (which I boringly cite on occasion) of 10^12, but I think 10^9 is almost universal now and the author is American so if they actually say billion I guess they mean 10^9 and it would be better to link to that - it is a factor of 10^3 after all. On reading WP on long and short scales I see that the common UK usage is now short scale 10^9 (no-one told me!). User:JezhotwellJezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • billion (10^9) in lead - i.e. assume 10^9 in the text, but link to explicit 10^9. No-one told me too (that 10^9 is now common UK usage) - it's now official, I'm an old fart. --Philcha (talk)
• starquakes, and rejuvenation now have specific links - sorry, I forget to use the DAB tool when nomination. --Philcha (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Stableford, B.M. (2006). "Forward, Robert Lull". Science fact and science fiction: an encyclopedia. CRC Press. p. 191. ISBN 0415974607. Retrieved 15 Nov 2009. is a fake use of ull as the book uses some silly typography for the middle name Lull
  • Ok, that has gone now. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• How about my comment about cheela. It is not neccessarily a big deal, but it did leap out at me. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd drop the quotes rather than go into a MOS analyis - gone. --Philcha (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, not a GA issue IMHO. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert L. Forward - Independent obit of Forward, by Clute; incl mini-review of "Egg"
• The Literary Experience of Hard Science Fiction (Science Fiction Studies #60 = Volume 20, Part 2 = July 1993) (Science Fiction Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jul., 1993), pp. 176-183 )
• The Humans Were Flat but the Cheela Were Charming in 'Dragon's Egg'
• "The Closely Reasoned Technological Story: The Critical History of Hard Science Fiction (Science Fiction Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jul., 1993), pp. ??

• Locus Awards 1981 - First Novel
• Seiun_Award#Best_Foreign_Language_Novel_of_the_Year

• Contact
  • ? Science Introduction (Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A; L. Snyder & T.P. Weber; 2007)
• Hard SF
  • Close encounters?: science and science fiction - scientific rigour in Clement, Forward & Niven (pp. 41-43)
  • Communicating science, Volume 2 - Clement and Forward "deans" of hard SF (pp. 154-155)
  • Time machines: time travel in physics, metaphysics, and science fiction - 67 billion g would have produced 7% relativistic time dilation (p. 542)
  • Speaking of the Fantastic II - paradigm of hard SF, character weak (p. 113-114)
  • The SF Site Featured Review: The Hard SF Renaissance

• Forward's own obit said Drake originated the idea of tiny fast-living creatures living on the surface of a neutron star.
• 'Dragon's Egg': Robert Forward Remembers - Clement's Mission of Gravity' ' may have planted the seed

• ? Baxter's Flux (novel)
  • Building New Worlds: Construction and Influences (Stephen Baxter, 1995) - aware of "Egg"rather than influenced

• Bibliography: Robert Lull Forward