Talk:Małe zielone ludziki/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 03:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 01:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

The quality of my review is going to be somewhat limited by almost all sources on the book (as far as I can tell) being in Polish.
The article is rather brief. I gather this reflects the level of coverage in reliable (and available) sources being relatively low?
For transparency and future reference, I'll note the previous discussion we've had about the reliability of encyklopediafantastyki.pl at Template:Did you know nominations/Balonem do bieguna.

Lead

The WP:LEAD is very barebones. It should be expanded with material from the "Reception" and "Analysis" sections (this might necessitate a sentence or so of plot summary for context). In particular, I think the South Africa thing should be included.
The lead is also a single run-on sentence.
I don't think labelling this as Afrofuturism (or Africanfuturism) should be done without a source explicitly using that term. Apart from the lead, this applies to including this in those categories (the article is currently in Category:Afrofuturist novels).
- @TompaDompa:. I agree OR is something to be wary of, but isn't this a case of WP:SKYISBLUE etc.? I mean, a major theme of this novel is Africa in science fiction, which, reading SFE [1]->[2] (no entry on Africa, see afrofuturism) seems to be be the same as afrofuturism (SFE: "for a literary and cultural treatment of the African diaspora in terms of, or incorporating tropes from, the genres of sf, Fantasy and Magic Realism"), with a not do " older literary works by George S Schuyler and others have been retroactively adopted into the genre". If you think this is too OPish, we could replace the term in the lead with Africa in science fiction (red link, but surely a notable topic?). Arguably, there is also Africanfuturism, and I am not sure either is as broad said "Africa in sf". But what about categories? Category:Africa in fiction, I guess, since there is no "fooregion in sf" cat tree? (Sigh, there probably should be...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do think it's too ORish. It's not clear to me that this fits the letter of the definition of either Afrofuturism or Africanfuturism. For Afrofuturism in particular, my understanding of the term is that it relates to the African diaspora—i.e. people of African descent outside of Africa—and this book doesn't seem to be about the diaspora? On the other hand, linking Africa in science fiction (an article that probably should exist) would be fine. TompaDompa (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of creation and edition

I might simply call this section "Publication history", which seems to be more standard.
It was first published in 1985 by Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza [pl] (in two volumes) as part of the series Fantazja–Przygoda–Rozrywka [pl] (Fantasy–Adventure–Entertainment). – I gather this sentence was meant to cite Encyklopedia Fantastyki?

Plot

Just noting that plot summaries do not need to cite secondary sources as the work itself functions as a WP:Primary source—but it's not prohibited either (and I frequently cite secondary sources for plot summaries per WP:PLOTREF myself).
That being said, where the ruling white population is developing laser weapons and planning to conquer the world to cleanse it of colored races appears to come from https://esensja.pl/ksiazka/recenzje/tekst.html?id=23112, so that source should be cited here as well.
conquer the world to cleanse it of colored races – "cleanse" does not seem to be the right word here, since the goal—if I understood it correctly—is enslavement rather than extermination.

Reception

This section is overly reliant on verbatim quotes from the reviewers where summarizing and paraphrasing would be better. The sentence He criticized the "author's indecisiveness about what should be the main thread of the story", which results in "everything leading nowhere". is a case in point.
Jarosław Loretz critically reviewed the book – I don't think "critically" is the right word here. It could plausibly be interpreted as either meaning that it was a negative review or that it was an in-depth one, so the ambiguity should be resolved.

Analysis

It has also been described as a dystopia. – should the link be to dystopian fiction (which redirects to Utopian and dystopian fiction) rather than to dystopia?
He criticized the protagonist, stating that she is overwhelmed by the plot. – is this actually criticizing the protagonist? That is, does the source say that the characterization suffers by an excessive focus on plot or that the in-universe character finds the events to be overwhelming (or something else entirely)?

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
See above.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
See above.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for.

C. It contains no original research:
See above.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig reveals no overt copyvio. Assessing WP:Close paraphrasing is a bit tricky when the article is in a different language than the sources, but there is an overuse of verbatim quotes that needs to be addressed.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
It's brief but appears to cover the basics adequately.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No obvious neutrality issues.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
There are no images.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Ditto.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Ping Piotrus. TompaDompa (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]