Creation of article

To TompaDompa - I appreciate your interest in Tucker and this work of his, as he is my Third Great Grandfather. I will try to help with this as time allows, in my elder years. I urge you to finalize your user page. I have found it to be a benefit over the years, without any measurable inconvenience. Hoppyh (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Voyage to the Moon (Tucker novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 23:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • There's no need to cite the Synopsis, as the book itself is the citation. It's standard practice for book articles to have the thing without explicit citations. I certainly don't see the point of having multiple citations for many of the sentences.
    • The synopsis I have written was based on secondary sources rather than the primary source, so it seems appropriate to cite those sources (I'll note that WP:PLOTREF says If all or most of the summary has been derived not from the work itself but from a comprehensive plot summary in a reliable secondary source, citing that source is recommended as a convenience to readers.). Where multiple sources are cited for the same sentence, it's likely to be because they verify different details (in the first sentence New York resident Joseph Atterley goes on a voyage around the world following the death of his wife, one of the sources verifies "New York resident" while the other verifies "following the death of his wife", for instance). TompaDompa (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is sometimes described as the earliest US story of interplanetary travel,[5][12][14][17][27][28][29] – excessive citations?
    • I can see why someone might think it excessive, but I think a high number of citations is necessary for balance reasons—this being something of an exceptional claim that is also immediately contradicted afterwards. It's a fairly common belief that it is the first. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, the quotebox by Neil Barron makes the earliest-US-story claim too. Given the text, we need to say something in the quotebox about that (i.e. Barron is wrong about the point), or the "initial American venture" bit could be elided "...".
  • Maybe gloss Bleiler as a scholar of science fiction.
  • I note in passing that the list of Tucker's works in his article sometimes includes his name and sometimes doesn't. Nothing to do with this review.

Images

Sources

  • The sources that I spot-checked verify the claims made from them.

Summary

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.

Hilton's analysis

J. L. Hilton writes that the book "belongs to the satirical tradition of Cyrano de Bergerac's Voyage dans la Lune (1657), Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1726), and the tall tales of Baron von Münchausen (18th century), as well as to the genre of speculative scientific accounts of the moon, such as Kepler's Somnium (1615-1629), Godwin's The Man in the Moon (1638) and Wilkins' The Discovery of a World in the Moone (1640), and proto-science-fiction such as Ludwig Holberg's Nikolai Klimii iter subterraneum (1741)."[1] Chiswick Chap suggested that this could be turned into a nice diagram. TompaDompa (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hilton, J. L. (2005). "Lucian and the Great Moon Hoax of 1835". Akroterion. 50: 1–20. doi:10.7445/50-0-78. ISSN 2079-2883.

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 SL93 talk 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by TompaDompa (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 24 past nominations.

TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

OK, let's see the criteria:

  • #1 The article is new enough, as it was promoted for GA-status at the very end of last year.
  • #2 It is long enough, consisting of almost 20.000 characters and more than 2.000 words.
  • #3 & #4 Copyvio seems fine, sources consist mostly of academic material, and the article looks good in terms of structure and layout.
  • #5, #6 & #7 Hook is cited to a reliable source, which is online, linked, and can easily be read by anyone. Hook is also short enough, and very interesting.
  • #8 & #10 No images are used and the article itself has no issues.
  • Lastly, #9, QPQ has been done.
I'd say this hook is approved as is.PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bundle refs

From the GA review: I can see why someone might think it excessive, but I think a high number of citations is necessary for balance reasons—this being something of an exceptional claim that is also immediately contradicted afterwards. It's a fairly common belief that it is the first.

One solution here is to bundle the refs. I think that the three most authoritative sources would suffice here, but if five or even seven are needed, it's less distracting for the reader to put them within a single footnote. If the claim is so contentious, I would recommend adding quotes from the material to the bundled citation. For instance, see The Structure of Literature#cite_ref-aims_22-0.

On a separate note related to the review, I appreciate your sourcing of the Synopsis. Makes it much easier to verify as a reader. czar 13:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:A_Voyage_to_the_Moon_(Tucker_novel)
No tags for this post.