Talk:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia

Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 21, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Reference works (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

A fact from Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 March 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Brian Stableford blamed the cancellation of the follow-up to his 2006 book Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia on the availability of information online?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia.

Wikipedia

GA Review[edit]

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:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 00:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to review this tonight. Note this is my first literature-related review, so apologies in advance for any obvious errors. ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait—this should be all and I have now placed this article on hold. Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns, otherwise I may not respond. Thanks! ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 15:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed all issues that need to be addressed. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Happy now to pass this article for GA status per the changes implemented. Congrats! ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check[edit]

Earwig says good to go. The quotations are used in-line with WP:COPYQUOTE.

File[edit]

The image used is appropriate and copyright-free:

File:Science Fact and Science Fiction An Encyclopedia.jpg: valid public domain rationale, low-quality image in use.

Prose[edit]

Begin the first sentence in § History with his full wikilinked name—both the first mention in the lead and body of an article are wikilinked.
- Done. I also glossed it. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"noting that while" – is an alternative word choice perhaps available to avoid duplicating noting in two sentences in a row?
- Changed to "writing". TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"compared the book favourably to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction by editors Peter Nicholls and John Clute," – this is already wikilinked above. Relatedly:
- Removed the link. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning the editors should be moved to its first mention.
- Done. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and The Science in Science Fiction." – duplicate link.
- Removed the link. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think "best work" needs quotation marks. Alternatively, something like "called it an example of Stableford's greatest work" could also work.
- I removed it altogether. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are three successive sentences in this paragraph that start with "She"; perhaps one of those could be changed to "Gordon" to avoid repetition.
- Done. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon's review is given quite a lot of words which may lead to undue weight. For instance, her and Latham's reviews are of about the same word count, yet Latham's is fairly short in comparison. Is is possible to shorten Gordon's slightly?
- It has been shortened slightly by removing the part mentioned above. Gordon's review is rather lengthy and covers a lot of different aspects (in other words, it's fairly in-depth), so I think it's reasonable that it gets a fair amount of space in this article. Latham's review may have a similar word count in total, but that review also covers another of Stableford's works (Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Literature), so it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I see!

Per MOS:NOTSEEALSO, disambigs should not be used in § See also.
- Used a hatnote instead. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

Passes spotcheck—no concerns with refs 2, 3 or 5.

I notice you have italicised the book title in the citation names except for refs 4 and 6. Is it practice to not do this for titles which only the book title?
- I don't know, it just intuitively seemed odd to italicize it in those instances (could be mistaken for the work the review appears in rather than the title of the review itself, for instance). I have added "Review:" to the reference titles for clarity. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, that makes sense. Good call.

Other[edit]

Short desc, section formatting and cats good.

Recommend adding template:use dmy dates (or the preferred date format).
Recommend adding template:use X English.
In External links, is it possible to make the Internet Archive URL in italics for consistency?
- Done. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Dying (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Brian Stableford blamed the cancellation of the follow-up to his 2006 book Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia on the availability of information online? Source: Interview with Stableford
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Down the rabbit hole (idiom)
- Comment: On the topic, Stableford also said "The fact that Wikipedia is so easy to use easily outweighs the disadvantages it carries in the forms of promiscuous misinformation and malicious disinformation." This could potentially be added to the article and incorporated in an alt hook, but I thought it a bit "navel-gazy".

Improved to Good Article status by TompaDompa (talk). Self-nominated at 17:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Date (recent GA pass), size, copyvio spotcheck, QPQ, hook, hook's source, interest-factor and neutrality, all GTG. Thank you for expanding the stub I started :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]