Talk:Na drugą planetę

Na drugą planetę is currently a Language and literature good article nominee. Nominated by _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} at 14:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Short description: Science fiction novel by Władysław Umiński

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 7 September 2024 by reviewer OhHaiMark (talk · contribs).

Intertranswiki/OKA

This article has been created, improved, or expanded by a translator from the Open Knowledge Association. See the OKA task force page of WikiProject Intertranswiki.Intertranswiki/OKAWikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKATemplate:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKAOKA

Novels: Sci-fi Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Na drugą planetę/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 14:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 23:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily I wouldn't inflict myself on the same nominator twice in a row, but this has been languishing without review for a while, so I will take it on. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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:

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

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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:
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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

Comments

My immediate thought on the prose is that there is heavy and frequently unnecessary use of parentheticals - this isn't strictly a GA criterion by itself, but in some cases it hinders understanding.
"first Polish novels of this genre" "this genre" is ambiguous - I assume you mean SciFi, but as written it could be books for young readers.
The use of a large quotation in the plot section is very odd to me. It's bordering on too long for copyright reasons, and it isn't clear why a quotation is preferred to a paraphrasing. Its tone is different from the rest of the article, and it is partially redundant to the previous plot summary. I assume you are writing this without access to the original book - which, for an 1800s book is quite reasonable - but even if you rely on the review for the summary, I think it needs paraphrasing and integration. There are also numerous details - Ecuador, billionaires, travel, someone called Brighton, etc that are present elsewhere but not noted in the plot.
The "Analysis" section is doing some heavy lifting - at least some of that material belongs in reception, and I would suggest - optionally - that some of it be moved above plot into a "background" or "setting" section.
That section is also - sorry - somewhat disorganized. Similar themes crop up all over it (the science elements of the story); and the same paragraph often covers many disparate ideas (see paragraph seven). I don't intend to apply the prose standards of FAC, but it really is hard to follow in places, and a little reorganization would go a long way. I would suggest pulling together the science fiction/realism analysis (possibly needs multiple paragraphs); the inspirations; and the setting/background.
"Umiński's own dreams" "dreams" is ambiguous here - it is presumably meant in the metaphorical sense of aspirations, rather than images seen while asleep, but given that with an author's inspiration this could go either way, some clarification would be good.
Why are some of the quotes italicized?
I think it's fair to say I have more familiarity with older science fiction than most of our readers, and yet I cannot follow the sentence "The novel fits into the positivist trend, although with a more moderated didactic approach." Even those who know the terms "positivism" and "didacticism" may not follow the connection to the novel's plot.
Suggest glosses for Kurier Warszawski, Damian Makuch, and Wróblewski; the latter also needs a first name at first use. Also suggest mentioning that the latter two are recent analysts.
I have yet to find an error on ISFDB, and have relied on it often, but as user-generated content it is quite clearly not reliable by our definition. I would suggest simply citing the primary text. That said, it supports the content cited, so I suppose it counts toward a spotcheck.
We seem to have a PD image of the author - I suggest using that. A cover would be nice, but isn't required, and of course may be hard to get a hold of.