Talk:A Honeymoon in Space/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about A Honeymoon in Space. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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 BorgQueen (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Space suits in A Honeymoon in Space

... that George Griffith's 1901 novel A Honeymoon in Space contains what may be the first space suits in fiction (pictured)? Source: "it features possibly the first fictional appearance of spacesuits"
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Manga Up!

Created by TompaDompa (talk). Self-nominated at 21:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/A Honeymoon in Space; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

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:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @TompaDompa: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That was fast. Am I (and the promoter) to infer that the image is also approved? TompaDompa (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed. ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

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 Honeymoon in Space/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 01:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, TompaDompa. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be reviewing this article. I look forward to working with you.

I'll start with the easy: All the images are within the public domain, so no copyright issues there. All of the images also have captions and are relevant to the topic. The addition of the alt text (while not necessary for a GA) is a good sign. ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Unorganised comments after initial read-through

The lead may be too short to summarise the article. The analysis section, for example, is extensive, but it is only given a passing metion in the lead.
- I usually write comparatively brief leads. I have expanded it somewhat and can expand it more, if you want me to. TompaDompa (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Link frontispiece under the infobox caption instead of under the illustations part.
- Done. TompaDompa (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
What is the significance of the 16th reference to Flammarion's book? The other source already verifies that he wrote about their honeymoon.
- Flammarion married twice, and the other source doesn't mention which of the two honeymoons this was. TompaDompa (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Stableford suggests that "Had Griffith read [...]"
In the manual of style (MOS:CONFORM), it states that "the original capital letter [of a quote in running text] may be lower-cased". I'd suggest changing the text in this quote accordingly.
Done. TompaDompa (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Says Barron, ...
I'd change this to something more conventional, like "According to Barron".
Done. TompaDompa (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll be assessing the GA criteria shortly. ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Criteria check

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See section above
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Though I was initially sceptical about the free use status of the lengthy block quotes featured in the analysis section, they seem short enough to warrant inclusion.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Everything potentially contentious is attributed appropriately.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'll wait for your response to the above section before I pass. Otherwise, this is a very well written article without any obvious shortcomings that I can find.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Now that the above comments have been rectified, I feel comfortable passing this article. I still feel that the lead may be a bit too small, but that seems like nitpicking at this point. Anyway, good work, TompaDompa! ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2023 (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.