Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Venus in fiction/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 October 2022 [1].

Venus in fiction

[edit]
Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a long while since I've been here. Anyway, hello again, old and new collegues. The article I bring to you is IMHO well written and comprehensive, having went through a GA review that was the most extensive and detailed in my decade+ history of GA reviews. The prose went through much copyediting, and me and the reviwer, User:TompaDompa, did a very throughout literature review. Now, let me be the first to point out a few issues.

First, the name (Venus in fiction). The article is about Venus (planet) in fiction, and int the future, if there is a Venus (goddess) in ficiton article, a disambig may be needed. Right now, the other topic is only covered poorly in a subsection at Venus_(mythology)#Mythology_and_literature, but it is arguably notable on its own. Not sure if we need to be concerned about the potential future move and creation of a disambig in the current title, but I'd like to highlight the issue. Also, note that Venus in science fiction redirects here, as effectively any fiction about plant venus is science fiction. There is also a redirect from Venus in popular culture, a more or less synonymous if more ambigious concept. The current name is in line with Astronomical locations in fiction, although the two prior GAs me and TompaDompa penned on related topics are under 'in science fiction': Moon in science fiction, Earth in science fiction. Standardization of names of relevant articles is a wider issue with no perfect solution, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Culture#Naming_of_articles_in_Category:Topics_in_culture:_time_for_consistency?.

Second. I do belive that the article is not comprehensive when it come to certain aspects, such as coverage of non-Western works Talk:Venus_in_fiction#Comprehensivness, video games (Category:Video games set on Venus...), board games (Onward to Venus), or works I personally consider significant (from Maurice Leblanc's fr:Les Trois Yeux to modern TV shows like The Expanse). Unfortunatley, we were unable to locate any sources that discuss them in this context. In general, it is not impossible some useful coverage exists in other languages, but there are realistic limits to what we can find (speaking for myself, I did a Polish-language query and found next to nothing). Several interwikis exist, but they are not helpful (they contain no sugestions of literature that we might have missed). As such, while I am concerned that the article suffers from some Western/English bias in coverage, as well from a form of anti-recentism (not enough weight given to the works from the last 2-3 decades), at this point I am ready to conclude that those biases are unavoidable, given our OR policy, as they represent common biases in accessible sources.

Third. Structure. The article is pretty much about literature. We have a section called 'Media' about comics and films. I wanted to add more - a section on anime and manga, a section in television, a section on video games, etc., but we did not find any sources discussing these other forms of media in this context (portrayals of Venus) in any depth.

I am looking forward to your thoughts, suggestions and constructive critique. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga

[edit]

What a fascinating article! It's good you discuss the concerns about bias and naming. I think it's ook for now and agree we can only go on the available sources. A few comments below

  • The Pope book is mentioned here three times as Romances of the Planets, no 2: Journey to Venus but our page calls it Journey to Venus and the full title there is Journey to Venus the Primeval World; Its Wonderful Creations and Gigantic Monsters, so I wonder if you can resolve the confusion
  • "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction lists in its entry on Venus" - "on venus" seems redundant?
  • "beautiful paradisiac or primordial planet" - maybe it's me, paradisiac reads funny, do you mean paradise-like?
  • "The conception of Venus has abundant water was controversial" - something went wrong there? "having" maybe?
  • "gave others a license for exotic natural or fanciful scenery" suggest "gave others a license to portray exotic natural or fanciful scenery"
@Mujinga Thanks for the review, I was beginning to wonder if I messed up listing this at FAC and it was invisbile... :)
Regarding Pope's book, I used the name from SF Encyclopedia. The unreferenced but likely correct explanation in our article on JtV suggests that the Romances of the Planets is the series title. I will simplify references to this work in our article to just Journey to Venus, as the longer name (and/or series name) issue should be discussed in the book article, it is rather irrelevant for us.
Regarding the redundant phrase, I've changed it to "lists in this context".
Paradisiac. I have no preference for which synonym to use, honestly (paradisaic, paradisaical, paradisal, paradisiacal...). Feel free to adjust it to paradise-like if you think it sounds better (it certainly is simpler English, which is usually a good thing).
"The conception... Right. Rewritten, please see if it reads better.
Gave... changed as you suggested.
Regarding the link to sex-appeal, I am unsure (per WP:BTW). If anyone removes the link, I won't restore it, but I am inclinded to leave it be for now. On that note, I am having second thoughts about the link to siren, it is very much a good term to link but here it is a part of the quote, and I think the cited author meant siren in the context of beautiful women, not necessarily the "Greek humanlike beings with alluring voices"... unlink? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies, I've made some edits, see what you think.I've changed it to "The idea of water on Venus" and "paradise-like". Also, per MOS:LINKQUOTE I've removed the links from the quote. None of these changes are particularly major so I'm not fussed if you want to revert and in any case I'm changing to support. Mujinga (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from VickKiang

[edit]

Just did a few very quick spotchecks.

  • - Minor, small quibble: The lede mentions Sarah Zettel, despite her only being mentioned once in the body. Unsure if it's due to be included in lede?
  • - For Treatments described sometimes as more "cerebral" or "mainline" included Olaf Stapledon's Last and First Men (1930), Campbell's "The Black Star Passes" (1930), Heinlein's "Logic of Empire" and later works, C. S. Lewis's Perelandra (1943), Henry Kuttner's Fury (1947), A. E. van Vogt's The World of Null-A (1949), Jack Williamson's Seetee series (1949–1951), Frederik Pohl and Cyril M. Kornbluth's novel The Space Merchants (1952) and Isaac Asimov's Lucky Starr and the Oceans of Venus (1954), I'm unsure about the use of "sometimes". Perhaps a more specific wording would be better to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch?
  • The SF is in quote, but shouldn't it be introduced first, possibly in brackets, as some readers might be unfamiliar with it?

More to come. VickKiang 07:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang My apologies, I missed your comments (do ping me in the future).
Regarding Zettel, I am ok removing her or not, I thought it's ok to mention her (Bova is mentioned twice in the lead). The problem is that most sources don't discuss the last two or three decades much, so we have very few examples of "modern" works and authors to mention.
I've removed the word "sometimes" as it seems simply unnecessary.
I am afraid I don't understand your last comment ("The SF is in quote"), could you elaborate? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my lack of clarity. I was referring to some of the gaudiest romances of Genre SF are set on Venus- could we introduce SF as science fiction? Of course, this is totally optional and is a minor nitpick. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "Classic writers who set their stories on Venus included": I don't think "classic" is the right word -- particularly for readers who are not genre aficionados. Kline is not well-regarded now, and Stapledon was not widely known in the field at the time, which makes a generally applicable adjective harder to find. Perhaps just drop the adjective completely?
  • 'A number of the earliest descriptions painted Venus as a beautiful, paradise-like or primordial planet, a view that was only in time modified by scientific findings. As observed by Carl Sagan in 1978: "A clement twilight zone on a synchronously rotating Mercury, a swamp-and-jungle Venus, and a canal-infested Mars, while all classic science-fiction devices, are all, in fact, based upon earlier misapprehensions by planetary scientists."' I think this would be better-placed at the start of the "Later depictions" section, where it can help with the transition.
  • Several works are mentioned both in the first paragraphs of "Early depictions" and again in the subsections, including Burroughs Pirates of Venus and its sequels, and Lewis's Perelandra. The article (necessarily) has a lot of in-prose lists, which don't make for easy reading, so I would take every opportunity to eliminate duplicate mentions in order to shorten those lists.
  • "The absence of a common vision of Venus resulted in the less coherent mythology of Venus": the source has (after talking about varied fictional settings of stories of Venus): "The other side of the coin was that there never grew up a consistent "Venusian mythology" comparable in power to the Mythology of Mars." I think what the source is saying is that stories set on Mars, because the settings were usually very similar, contributed to a coherent conception of a fictional Mars, whereas the freedom allowed to writers by the blanketing clouds meant that stories set on Venus used a wide range of settings, and prevented Venus having a similarly consistent image within the genre". I don't think the current wording says that -- it's compressed too far, to the point where it almost says "the lack of a common vision meant there was no common vision".
  • "some of the gaudiest romances of Genre SF are set on Venus": "Genre" is only capitalized in the source because it's a link, I believe; I think this is a permissible typographic change that you can make without indicating it. And "SF", as we're also discussing at my current FAC, requires introduction as an abbreviation, or you could do square brackets: "some of the gaudiest romances of [genre science fiction] are set on Venus".
  • "Scientific discourse on the prospects for life on Venus dimmed from the 1930s on": suggest "Prospects for life on Venus dimmed from the 1930s on" -- it was the prospects, not the discourse, that dimmed, and the rest of the sentence makes it clear this was because of scientific progress.
  • "The theme of romantic, habitable, pre-Mariner Venus occasionally resurfaces": suggest "A romantic, habitable, pre-Mariner Venus occasionally resurfaces": it's not the theme that reappears, it's the depiction of the planet itself.
  • There's a conflict between the chronological and thematic organization. "Colonization" and "Terraforming" are both subsections within "Later depictions", but as the examples indicate these include examples dating from the era before conditions on the planet surface were understood.
  • In the "Lifeforms" section, when you mention works that have been named before, I would just use the author's last name and skip the date where possible -- e.g. Pope should be dated as it's not obvious from context, but the sentence that starts "In the second half of the 20th century" doesn't need dates if they've been given earlier in the article.
  • "the latter reimagining the portrayal as Venusians into "half-naked sex-appealing blond sirens" with supernatural or psychic powers": suggest "the latter reimagining Venusians, portraying them as "half-naked sex-appealing blond sirens" with supernatural or psychic powers.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Thanks for stopping by!
Changed classic to "Early science fiction".
"A number of the earliest descriptions" - not done. I see your point, but to me this looks good where it is. I won't object if someone moves it as it can fit in both places, it's a toss, really.
Regarding examples, they are examples of different types. For example, Pirates of Venus is mentioned in sources as an example of an early work about Venus, and as an example of work with the jungle and swamp setting. While the swamp and jungle is part of the early depictions, I am not convinced we need to mention it only once. Again, I won't revert someone removing the first mention (probably) but I don't feel the need to do it myself as I think it is informative to use such examples for all relevant cases.
To me, "less coherent mythology of Venus" is what the source says, succient and not the same as "no common vision". But I am open to suggestions how to rewrite it/expand it to be more clear?
Genre SF. I am nots sure if we need an article on this (https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/genre_sf), but yes, capitalization is not necessary - except it is in the quote, and we reproduce quotes as written. I am not opposed to changing it, in the quote, to [genre science fiction], but is this really a better practice than just quoting the source without changing its style?
"Scientific discourse..." - changed per your suggestion.
"The theme of..." - changed per your suggestion.
"There's a conflict between the chronological and thematic organization." Yes, some boundaries will be fuzzy, you could say the same about Venusian section, of later coverage of comics/movies. I don't think there is an elegant way to resolve it, not in a two-dimensial wall of text medium.
" when you mention works that have been named before, I would just use the author's last name and skip the date where possible" - fair point. There was some unnecessary repetition of such detail in several places, I've done a c/e pass for that. If I missed something, feel free to remove such duplication if you see it.
"the latter reimagining" - changed per your suggestion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the points you've addressed; I'll have a think about the others and come back to this, probably this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some points unstruck, but I don't expect you to address them; none of them prevent me from supporting -- they're matters of preference. Before I support this article for promotion I wanted to mention two sources that you might not have consulted: Everett Bleiler's The Early Years and The Gernsback Years. Both have a "theme index" section that links to summaries of stories; there are scores of references to Venus. I'm not certain any of it has to be included, because it's a completist index, rather than selective, so trivially non-notable stories are covered along with work by significant writers. Still, if you don't have access to a copy I can send you scans of the indexes and some sample pages to see if you think either book would be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Assumiung that the full title of the latter is Science-fiction: the Gernsback years : a complete coverage of the genre magazines... then I found both at Z-library. For the first, the index on pages 921-922 seems to have some interesting examples and cursory commentary, and I'll probably be able to add a few tidbits from it to the article. The index for the second one seems more disorganized, and I am not sure if this book is helpful. If you have physical copies, can you check if either has a chapter on Venus? I don't think so, but sometimes physical can be better then CTRL+F checking, particularly as the scan can be corrupt have an OCR issue or such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Added a new paragraph to the top of Venusian section, based on the examples/comments from the cited work (pages 921-922). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can send you the relevant index section from The Gernsback Years if you send me a Wikipedia email, but it doesn't look very different from the one you cited in The Early Years, so I don't think it would change the article much -- though I suppose citing this section too would be a benefit to readers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sent the index pages. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ReaderofthePack

[edit]
  • Forgot again! I'll do a quick review now. One of the things I noticed is that there isn't a list anywhere of the various works of Venus in fiction. This isn't really anything for the page in specific to fix, but it's something that could be useful in the future as a separate article. I suppose that you could link to the category within the article, but that just seems messy. As far as mentions in the article go, I think that the current amount is good. Sourcing-wise, I don't really have the time to go into the sourcing in-depth, but everything looks good offhand. I can see the argument for the page range in the sourcing section, but the presence of the pages in the body of the article allows for the sourcing section to give more of a streamlined, cleaner look. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ReaderofthePack Lists tend to clash with MOS:POPCULTURE. Note that this article was a gigantic, unreferneced list until I rewrote it. See how it looked before and let me know if I misunderstood what you are asking? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any merit to posting pictures of the surface of Venus? (There's some on Commons.) It looks like the depictions changed prior to the first images that came out in the 70s, but did those have any other impact on how Venus was depicted? If so, then this could be worth including in the article as an image. If not, then disregard. --ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ReaderofthePack It's a thought. Are there any images you'd like to suggested? Most of the "artists vision" stuff is copyrighted, and sciencey stuff is, well, just some images of clouds and such, AFAIK. I'd love to add a picture of "Venus in artists visions pre-50s and post-50s" but couldn't find anything better than what we have in the article now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one isn't bad, but I see your point. A lot of it is the sort of thing that's exciting as far as science goes, but is just sort of "blad" when considering the article. Then there's stuff like this, which gives a view of the planet but doesn't really help illustrate the idea of "Venus as uninhabitable to humans". I admittedly thought we had some of the colored pictures of the landscape when I suggested this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TompaDompa

[edit]

I've deliberated quite a bit whether I should review this or refrain from doing so. As mentioned in the nomination, I reviewed the article for WP:Good article status. I am consequently already very familiar with the article and its sources, but it also means that I'm rather involved—while User:Piotrus is the main author of the current version, my metaphorical fingerprints are all over the article as a result of suggestions I made in the process as well as a fair amount of copyediting and the like that I did myself. I've finally decided to weigh in—this seems to be getting several fresh sets of eyes on it now—but it's worth noting that I'm not entirely an outside party. I intend to do a source and image review (I've already had a fairly thorough look during the GA process after all), though since I'm new to this I'd appreciate if someone (perhaps one of the coordinators?) could double-check that no important aspects are missed there. TompaDompa (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no expectation that a GA reviewer should refrain from reviewing at FAC, though it's worth declaring that you were the GA reviewer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that I did the review for GA status in itself that gave me pause, but rather that I have had so much input that I could be considered a co-author of sorts. TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(For the record, given the amount of reviewing work, yes, I think you can call yourself a second author here, by all means!) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
[edit]

I have already checked the article's sourcing up to this version (not just spotchecks—I've verified every single sentence) as part of the GA process. All sources are—as far as I can tell—reliable and otherwise appropriate for the content they are used for. I was unable to access Bracia Strugaccy by Wojciech Kajtoch (currently ref 9), but I'm willing to WP:Assume good faith there. I have checked the changes and additions that have been made to the content and sources since (i.e. up to this version), and noted the issues I found below.

  • The WP:Featured article criteria mandate that citations be consistently formatted. To this end I was going to suggest restricting dates for books to year only, but you already implemented that.
  • The sources that are not in English need to indicate which language they are in (currently done for some but not all of them) and provide the English translation of the titles (use |trans-title=). Wanderer am Himmel: Die Welt der Planeten in Astronomie und Mythologie, for instance, would be something along the lines of "Wanderers in the Sky: The World of the Planets in Astronomy and Mythology".
  • The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction reference should not include "SFE" in the title, but just the title of the entry ("Venus").
  • The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction reference should include the date (2021 or 2021-01-25 depending on if you want to treat it like a book or a webpage).
  • The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction reference should include the entry authors: Brian Stableford and David Langford. It's debatable if the editors (John Clute, David Langford, Graham Sleight) should also be included.
  • The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy reference should provide the page range.
  • The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy reference could optionally use this link to the Internet Archive rather than the current Google Books link.
  • The Wanderer am Himmel: Die Welt der Planeten in Astronomie und Mythologie reference should provide the page range.
  • The Wanderer am Himmel: Die Welt der Planeten in Astronomie und Mythologie reference should provide the chapter title ("Venus" or "Ein geplatzter Traum", depending on how specific you want to be about it) and use the |chapter-url= parameter rather than the generic |url= one.
  • The link to Braccia Strugaccy should be removed—it's useless for verification. It also duplicates the |oclc= field, so it's unnecessary.
  • The Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia reference should provide the page range.
  • The Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia reference should provide the chapter title ("Venus and Venusians") and use the |chapter-url= parameter rather than the generic |url= one.
  • David Seed is not the author of A Companion to Science Fiction, but the editor. The author of the cited chapter ("Science Fiction and Ecology") is Brian Stableford.
  • E. F. Bleiler should be linked in the reference.
  • Alexander Victorovich Fedorov should be linked in the reference.

TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa Done except: 1) page ranges for books cited are provided in text body, using template:rp, which is why I removed any page ranges from the citation templates on purpose to avoid needless/confusing redundancy 2) Regading Wanderer am Himmel: Die Welt der Planeten in Astronomie und Mythologie, I believe this ref was added by you (or User:Daranios?), and it's in German, a language I don't speak. As such, I cannot decide which chapter title is better here, would you have a preference? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough about the page ranges, I suppose. I added the chapter title. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
[edit]
  • All images are public domain, CC BY-SA 3.0, or CC BY-SA 4.0 (the last one being fine for media but not for text per WP:CFAQ).
  • The images lack WP:ALT text, which need to be added.
  • All images are relevant and the captions are suitable.
  • With the possible exception of File:Fantastic adventures 194111.jpg, all images have decent image quality. That image illustrates Venus appearing in pulp stories, tropical climate, and exotic lifeforms. The first and last of those aspects are illustrated by other images on the page. I think it's okay, but it might be possible to find a better image.

TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good. The image review is a pass. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
[edit]
  • Either reduce the number of examples or elaborate on the details of individual examples anywhere more than (say) three examples are listed. We're supposed to summarize, not enumerate.
  • The "Media" section feels really out of place considering the overall article structure. I would strongly suggest interspersing the examples throughout the text as appropriate rather than devoting a separate section to this (though there might also be some other solution I haven't thought of). The way it's currently done is conspicuous to such an extent that I find it to be a WP:WEIGHT issue.
  • I would suggest adding WP:REDLINKS at first mention for all applicable works, though this is a matter of preference.
  • This source (currently used as "Further reading") could probably be used to expand the article somewhat.
  • "The idea of water's abundance on Venus" – Awkward phrasing.
  • "Prospects for life on Venus dimmed from the 1930s on" – This should be rephrased. The actual likelihood of life on Venus was of course the same all along, it was scientists' estimation of that likelihood that changed.
  • "Overall, the sentient inhabitants of Venus are most commonly portrayed as human, or human-like, although Everett Franklin Bleiler listed a number of exceptions [...]" – This is missing the crucial piece of context that it comes from Science-Fiction: The Early Years, which means Bleiler's observations only apply to early (pre-1930) science fiction.
  • "winged, angelic people, dwarves, giants, archaic humans ("subhumans"), humans but wings and antennae, intelligent giant bees, ants and worm larvae, giant monstrous insects [...]" – Two items in this list have internal commas: "winged, angelic people" and "intelligent giant bees, ants and worm larvae". Either separate the items with semicolons or edit the set of items to avoid having items with internal commas.
  • "It was adapted into a two-part English-language release" – I don't think that's correct. It seems like these were two different adaptations rather than two parts of a single adaptation. Specifically, from what I can gather, dubbed and re-edited versions with some new footage (cf. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!).

TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa Done unless otherwise noted below:
1) "We're supposed to summarize, not enumerate." That's subjective. I'll note that numerous other cited reference works, including encyclopedias, have no problem with enumeration. If you think in a particular case (work) there was deeper content (analysis) in a source we haven't incorporated, do let me know and I'll see about expanding the article. Otherwise, we are simply repeating an enumration as given in a RS on the topic.
2) Regarding the media section, there is no good way of doing this. Some sources focus on specific types of media. The solution is to wait for the apperance of sources discussing this in other contexts.
3) I support REDLINKS, but that begs the question of which works are notable to be linked, and which aren't.
4) Good find with [2]. I'll read it and see what can be incorporated in a near future.
5) "The idea of water's abundance on Venus". And so it begins, my experience with numerous reviewers at FAC. No disrespect to anyone, but this was rewritten following a request to do so by another FAC reviewer. You are welcome to restore the old version. I wash my hands from that (to me both variants sound ok).
6) "Prospects for life on Venus dimmed from the 1930s on" - likewise, this was rewritten following a request of another reviewer. Feel free to restore the previous version. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1: I agree with Espresso Addict that this is "not an example of our best prose. It feels very listy and not very analytical." Adding a brief description (even if it is not really analytical) goes a long way. One example of this that is already in the article is "Kuttner and Moore's "Clash by Night" (1943), and its 1947 sequel, Fury, describe survivors from a devastated Earth living beneath Venusian oceans."
2: I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.
3: I would link all of them. WP:REDLINK says "Only remove red links if you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." (emphasis in original), so the threshold for adding them should similarly be low.
5: I rephrased it to "The idea that water is abundant on Venus".
Some additional comments:
  • "It was adapted into English-language as [...]" – This is ungrammatical and needs to be rephrased.
  • "with supernatural or psychic powers" – Well, which is it?
  • I don't see how mentioning Pathfinders to Venus is justified with the current sourcing. The cited sources are not remotely on Venus in fiction.
TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa I agree that descriptions are good, the problem is that most sources don't provide them, which raises the specter of OR, or adding even more citations for a few sentences of plot summary (which often is available in the blue linked link).
Re 2, to put it simply: there's no good solution, and I think the current headings/content division is fine. The main article focuses on books/short stories, and we have separate sections/paragraphs for comic books and film/TV. I don't see this as particularly glaring, although if someone does, they can rewrite it, moving the examples to other relevant section. I think it would be a lot of work for little gain.
Re red links, some (most) pass criteria (I just spent 10m+ checking all), Achille Eyraud [3], Gustavus W. Pope [4], Garrett Smith (disambig needed?) [5] nvm, just stubbed at Garrett Smith (writer), Brenda Pearce [6], Bob Buckley (de:Bob Buckley), Rolf Garner [7], Charles L. Graves [8], James William Barlow [9]. The only link I removed was to Stephen L. Gillett, the encyclopedia contributor, who is probably not notable yet.
"It was adapted into English-language as" - could you rephrase it? It sounds ok to me.
"with supernatural or psychic powers" - the source doesn't specify. Can't it be both? IIRC there was something about wheather control or telepathy, shrug. I'd argue that either can be described as both.
Re: Pathfinders to Venus - User:Espresso Addict asked for this to be added. I don't see a problem, it's a TV show that has some plot relation to Venus (travelling to it? visiting it? hard to say, but it's Venus in-sf-fiction related). Fiction being on TV screen. What's the problem? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think adding additional sources to be able to add details about the works is a problem at all, really. There are presently multiple instances where seven or more items are presented in succession without any additional details. That's only somewhat an improvement over a bulleted list. Adding details helps the reader get a better understanding of the topic, and makes the text a lot more pleasant to read (compared to a bare list) to boot. Plot details being available by following a link (many works currently lacking an article to link to notwithstanding) doesn't really enter into it. The alternative would be to remove some of the examples to reduce the "listiness".
I'll see if I can find the time to rework the "Media" section. Like I said, the way it's currently done conspicuous to such an extent that I find it to be a WP:WEIGHT issue.
The issue I see with the Pathfinders to Venus inclusion and sourcing can be viewed through several different lenses: the essay WP:CARGO ("Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis."), the guideline MOS:POPCULT ("Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist."), or the policy WP:PROPORTION ("An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."—on the subject being key here). It all comes down to the same thing, however: if we are to cover something in an article on Venus in fiction, it should be covered by sources on Venus in fiction. Sources on some other topic that happen to verify the connection to Venus in fiction are not sufficient. Pathfinders to Venus could perhaps be used as an example of something or other (as WP:CARGO says: "The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis."), but right now it's just mentioned as an instance of Venus appearing in fiction devoid of any particular context.
I have copyedited the things I suggested needed rephrasing.
Something I just noticed: "Ray Cummings' Tarrano the Conqueror (1925) or E. V. Lucas or Farley's The Radio Menace (1930)" – that should be "and" rather than "or" in both instances, right? I didn't want to change it in case there's something I'm missing.
Ping Piotrus. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and is ok, I'll change it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi TompaDompa, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gog the Mild: I have intentionally refrained from doing so thus far, because I would oppose promoting this to WP:Featured article status in its current state based on the issues I've brought up above that have yet to be resolved, but these issues could be resolved and the article improved to a state that I would be comfortable with supporting for WP:FA status, and the latter would obviously be the preferable outcome.
      In particular, the deal-breakers for me relate mainly to WP:PROPORTION and the relative weight given to different aspects, which I suppose would fall under WP:FACR 1c (which mandates that the article be a "representative survey of the relevant literature"—representative being the key word) and 1d (which mandates that it be compliant with WP:NPOV more broadly), and possibly also 4 (which mandates that it "[stay] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail"). I also don't see what amounts to lists in prose form as being compatible with the prose quality requirements set out by WP:FACR 1a. TompaDompa (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @TompaDompa I don't mind adding more detail, but again, I don't recall it being present in the sources. Other, academic, encyclopedias of sf that cover Venus are very happy with not providing detail (yes, they may be contrained by size, but we are constrained by OR and can't add details if it's not in the sources). Consider https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/venus : "Early Scientific Romances set on Venus include Gustavus W Pope's Romances of the Planets, No. 2: Journey to Venus (1895) and John Munro's A Trip to Venus (1897). Fred T Jane's early Satire on the interplanetary romance was To Venus in Five Seconds (1897), and Venus was also the world visited by Garrett P Serviss's A Columbus of Space (January-June 1909 All-Story; rev 1911)" or from Stableford's Science fact and science fiction an encyclopedia: "The oceanic version of Venus was featured in Harl Vincent’s ‘‘Venus Liberated’’ (1929) and Clifford D. Simak’s ‘‘Rim of the Deep’’ (1940), but many stories in the science fiction pulps, including John W. Campbell’s ‘‘Solarite’’ (1930), John Beynon Harris’ ‘‘The Venus Adventure’’ (1932), and Stanton A. Coblentz’s The Blue Barbarians (1931; book, 1958) and The Planet of Youth (1932; book, 1952), imagined Venus as fundamentally Earthlike but warmer and cloudier.". What we have is perfectly in line, and in style, and in detail, of such sources.
      And while we could of course add detail from other sources (ex, from a work about that particular book, or author), you yourself say "if we are to cover something in an article on Venus in fiction, it should be covered by sources on Venus in fiction". So I am not sure how we can have the cake and eat it here, we are either violating your view PROPORTION, or POPCULT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no contradiction. Not every single detail about a specific example needs to come from a source on the overarching topic. For instance: if you use Pamela Sargent's Venus of Dreams as an example of terraforming Venus, citing the "Venus" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, it is perfectly reasonable to cite additional sources that discuss terraforming in Venus of Dreams to allow you to elaborate. And of course, there is always the option of reducing the number of examples listed.
      Entries in other, professional encyclopedias aren't always up to the standards we expect WP:Featured articles to meet. There can be issues in terms of length, depth, breadth, clarity, and so on. Matching them is not an end in itself if we can do better, especially when it comes to specialized and/or paper encyclopedias that have other considerations than Wikipedia does as an online general-purpose encyclopedia. TompaDompa (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      TompaDompa, I'm concerned that what you're proposing would stray into synthesis. The SFE3 article, for example, generally restricts itself to listing examples, rather than giving details of exactly how Venus is represented in each case -- the Bleiler sources are unusual in that they do go into that sort of detail. If Sargent's Venus of Dreams is mentioned by a source but they don't go into any detail about the terraforming, I think we have two reasons not to go into detail ourselves -- we don't have a source that does so, and it would be hard to determine what is relevant to include. I could imagine a scholarly article about visions of terraforming Venus that compared e.g. Anderson's "The Big Rain" with Sargent and others, but without such an article I think it's very difficult to go beyond what the reliable sources do, which is mostly just to list examples. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It goes without saying that we cannot write anything we don't have the sources for. This specific example isn't really one where there is a lack of sources, however. Worldmakers: SF Adventures in Terraforming by Gardner Dozois says "Suddenly, we were seeing stories and novels again that dealt centrally with terraforming, instead of reducing it to a background enabling-device, including the launch of two major series of terraforming novels that treated both the scientific and the social problems involved in creating a new world in considerable detail and with great gravitas, Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars), and Pamela Sargent's Venus trilogy (Venus of Dreams, Venus of Shadow, and Child of Venus)". Frontiers Past and Future: Science Fiction and the American West by Carl Abbott says (among other things) "Pamela Sargent, working a generation after Poul Anderson, has dealt with the same big question, giving a compelling and nuanced depiction of the political requirements of terraforming in Venus of Dreams (1986), Venus of Shadows (1988), and Child of Venus (2001)." Terraforming: Ecopolitical Transformations and Environmentalism in Science Fiction by Chris Pak likewise discusses and compares a number of works about terraforming including Sargent's. There may be other instances where we actually cannot write even a brief description for lack of proper sourcing, but then, we don't have to give seven examples when two or three would do the trick.
      I also don't think it's entirely accurate to say that reliable sources mostly just list examples (though Bleiler does indeed go into much more detail than most). Sticking to the subject of terraforming Venus, the "Venus" entry of The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy says things like "As early as 1955, Anderson's "The Big Rain" showed colonists working to transform a hot, poisonous Venus into a new Earth" and "in Pamela Sargent's Venus of Dreams (1986) and its sequels, terraforming serves as the background of a multigenerational saga", while the "Venus and Venusians" entry of Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia says things like "One pioneering story was Anderson's "The Big Rain" (1954), in which machines and bioengineered organisms are being deployed to make Venus resemble Earth." and "Pohl's "The Merchants of Venus" (1972) features people endeavoring to terraform Venus who first discover evidence of the alien Heechee race that was later the focus of his Gateway (1972) and several sequels." That's the kind of brief description I'm talking about.
      By the way, I discovered an additional source by Gary Westfahl that is relevant for this article: The Stuff of Science Fiction: Hardware, Settings, Characters, which has a chapter on Venus. As far as I can tell, the book was published just last month, i.e. during this WP:Featured article nomination. It's only partially available via Google Books, but it appears to cover some ground that the article currently does not. Thus, through no fault of the nominator (the source wasn't available when the article was nominated), it now seems dubious if this meets the comprehensiveness criterion (WP:FACR 1b). Of course, this should not be viewed as a problem but as an opportunity to further improve the article by expanding it using this new source. I have started doing so. TompaDompa (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @TompaDompa While I think it's great to add more substance, I disagee with "we don't have to give seven examples when two or three would do the trick." This may be subjective, but I don't see a problem with listing all the examples other sources do. If they find it relevant, I think a list of examples is just as relevant as their description. Of course, both are best, but since many sources, like SFE, focus more on lists than the analysis, it means that the authors, many of whom are experts on those literary topics, decided that listing examples is MORE important than providing an analysis. We can criticize this approach, perhaps, but we cannot ignore it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having been able to read the entire chapter on Venus in The Stuff of Science Fiction: Hardware, Settings, Characters (through help from WP:RX), I can now say with confidence that the current version of this article indeed does not meet the comprehensiveness criterion, nor is it really satisfactorily balanced in terms of relative weight. I'm working on addressing this, but that may take some time as I think it will be necessary to edit the existing content quite a bit to be able to incorporate the new stuff without ending up with an article that flows terribly. TompaDompa (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To keep it short, I am sure your edits will improve the article, I just don't agree that it currently doesn't meet FA criteria, including in comprehensivness. I doubt the new source will allow us to add more then a few more details (names, examples, etc). A few percentage points of more details won't be a major difference. As for balance, it represents what's in the sources we found so far. I don't think UNDUE is violated in any place. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, would you be able to send me the chapter? I'd like to be able to evaluate the article for comprehensiveness in the light of the material in the chapter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Sure. Send me a wikimail and I'll reply with the chapter I got from WP:RX. TompaDompa (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, thanks for sending that. Reading through the chapter and making some notes, and then rereading the article, brings up these points:

  • Westfahl (p. 166) gives a page of contrasts between conceptions of Mars and Venus. Some are already mentioned in the article, but I think one point he makes is worth including in the article: the association with the gods of war and love, which led to more stories about a female-dominated Venus -- the article does mention this point, but not the association with the relevant gods.
  • He also makes the point (citing statistics drawn from Bleiler's lists) that though depictions of the Venusian environment were more varied, because less was known and the cloud cover gave writers more licence, the Venusians themselves were not very varied (p. 167).
  • He suggests (p. 172) that modern genre sf is still in thrall to "cultural conditioning dating back to Lowell", a point I think is worth including -- he means that more sf is still written about Mars, but that this is illogical given that the two planets are both uninhabitable and Venus would be the more natural target for terraforming. The chapter finishes with a related point: "Yet there is nothing resembling Percial Lowell's myth of Mars to lure humans to transform and colonize Venus, so it might remain a planet that is marginalized in contemporary visions of humanity's future in the solar system." This draws the line from Lowell to sf writers indirectly, arguing that that Lowell's myth has a hold on the scientific imagination too, and that that in turn marginalizes Venus in sf.

Westfahl certainly mentions other works that are not mentioned in this article, but I think that's OK; these articles are forced to be very listy but we don't have to include everything relevant. I don't see any significant omissions. I've supported above and see no reason to strike my support, but I do think these points should be considered for adding to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, another point Westfahl makes (on page 165) that I think is important to include is that Venus does not really have much of a canon (for lack of a better word) of major works, unlike Mars. Anyway, I'm working on restructuring the article a bit to make it easier to expand it with additional material and more varied examples. TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a sec, exactly how much of a restructure are we talking about? FAC is not the place for significant changes, if we're agreed a serious restructure is necessary then it will be best to archive this and work it away from FA. If I've misunderstood the extent of the changes you're talking about that's fine but let's work that out before beginning. N.B. It's past my bedtime so don't think me rude if I don't engage in any correspondence on this point for a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I was thinking along the lines of moving sentences between paragraphs and reordering paragraphs, mostly—not changing the core structure of the article (the main headings and such). TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I'm not familiar with the Polish sources but as far as I can tell everything cited is reliable.

  • You have one source cited using {{citation}} and the rest using {{cite}}; these give slightly different output formats, so I would switch the citation one to cite book.
  • The cite to the ESO gives the website title, "European Southern Observatory", but the other instance of cite web, for the SFE, gives the URL instead. These should be consistent.
  • The cite to Fedorov doesn't cite a journal name.
  • You have "YYYY-MM-DD" for dates that give the date, but "Month YYYY" for journal dates with only a month. I suppose this isn't technically inconsistent but it does look odd. Can we go with "May 28, 1978" or "28 May 1978"?
  • You're inconsistent about giving publisher locations -- they're not compulsory but should be consistent, i.e. give them for all books or none.
  • FN 6 appears to be missing part of the name of the first author.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie All done, and few other fixes for issues I've noticed. Note that I decided to remove the location names (mostly trivial metadata), and day/month dates for references (not generally used for books and journals in academia). I just left day month for the one-two newspapers and a montly newsletter cited, as I think it is more relevant for those types of media. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK on all points except that it looks like there's still a location included in the citation to Kajtoch (2016). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was using some weird fields, missed it. Fixed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. I see there's another source review in progress above so I'll hold off marking this as a pass till that's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/151697?search-result=true&query=%22Kajtoch%2C+Wojciech%22&current-scope=&filtertype_0=title&filter_relational_operator_0=contains&filter_0=&rpp=50&sort_by=dc.date.accessioned_dt&order=desc&page=2
https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/25668?search-result=true&query=%22Kajtoch%2C+Wojciech%22&current-scope=&filtertype_0=title&filter_relational_operator_0=contains&filter_0=&rpp=50&sort_by=dc.date.accessioned_dt&order=desc&page=4
https://www.academia.edu/49862339/Wojciech_Kajtoch_Bracia_Strugaccy_II_wydanie
https://www.academia.edu/49861114/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%B9%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%85_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%85_%D0%91%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA_%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0_
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341286957_Wojciech_Kajtoch_Bracia_Strugaccy_Wydanie_drugie_uzupelnione_Stawiguda_2016_wyd_Solaris_s_570_ISBN_978-83-7590-248-8
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340255791_Vojceh_Kajtoh_Brata_Strugackie_ocerk_tvorcestva
Here's a this book
Wojciech Kajtoch 31.178.77.163 (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Espresso Addict

[edit]

Driveby comments from a quick skim. I found the article fascinating but not an example of our best prose. It feels very listy and not very analytical. There is a lot based on the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. The non-text examples at the end under "Media" feel very thin and might be better excluded althogether if sourcing is that sparse. Could do with a careful copy edit; there are numerous minor errors (eg hyphenation, italicisation, dash use) and redundant words (eg penned by) throughout. Some specific comments:

  • Lead: "Works of fiction about the planet Venus have been written since before the 19th century." Really? The body has the first work focusing on Venus as 1865.
  • Under "Early depictions: exotic tropics", "In time, Venus became one of the most popular planets in early science fiction, perhaps second only to Mars" very vague. Is there a reason for separating out examples not in English/French; there's no analysis of any difference in approach.
  • Under "Ocean", what do "The two" and "the former" refer to?
  • Under "Other" "The absence of a common vision of Venus resulted in the less coherent mythology of Venus" repetition. What is Stephen L. Gillett ? He is reffed again later but not even redlinked.
  • Under "Later depictions: hostile inferno" is "dimmed" the right word? "Following a brief period of disinterest" disinterest is incorrect. Later same sentence "now known to be a rather hostile environment" is repetitive. Still later, "as pictured in" seems wrong for lit.
  • Under "Colonization" need date for Wyndham to pin down subsequent decades. "Following emerging scientific evidence of Venus' harsh conditions, colonization of Venus" repetition.
  • Under "Terraforming" "Other relevant woks"; aside from the unfortunate typo, introducing a list like that without analysis, particularly when there are often no wikilinks to explore, is frustrating.
  • Under "Venusians" "humans but wings and antennae" missing something. "intelligent giant bees, ants and worm larvae, giant monstrous insects" is confusing/repetitive. The whole list here is very hard to parse. "Venusian society and culture has been described as both inferior and superior to human, varying from work to work." Bit of a pointless sentence. "James William Barlow and John Munro penned descriptions of Venusian civilizations, respectively," respectively misplaced, and the whole sentence seems tagged on.
  • Under "Media" "Most depictions of Venus in fiction are literary" Literary seems an odd word here given the prevalence of pulp. "The Soviet film Planeta Bur (1962) was another movie from that time period." Pointless sentence.

Sorry for terseness, typing is painful right now. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at Project Muse; there are 2577 hits for Venus & "science fiction" that might be worth a trawl (avail on library but needs a specific login). F'rex, The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader Telotte, J.P. (muse.jhu.edu/book/3715) mentions Pathfinders to Venus, a 1961 BBC television children's sf series but I don't see even a mention of television depictions. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict Thanks for taking a look!
"The body has the first work focusing on Venus as 1865." Errr, 1656 is given?
But only as a minor subject.("touching on"); "The earliest use of Venus as the primary focus was Achille Eyraud's Voyage à Venus (Voyage to Venus, 1865)"
I am not sure if this is a meaningful distinction, but it is worth a third opinion. I'll ping GA reviewer User:TompaDompa, who, as he himself admitted, has previously verified every sentence and fact. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would cut the Gordian Knot and go with the phrasing I have used for e.g. Mercury in fiction and Mars in fiction: say that the planet has been used as a setting in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict I'd be fine with that? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Is there a reason for separating out examples not in English/French; there's no analysis of any difference in approach." This is an attempt to address WP:SYSTEMICBIAS.
I don't understand why WP:SYSTEMICBIAS requires these works to be separated out?
Best practices recommended by SYSTEMICBIAS suggest that we try to avoid such things as Anglophone bias present in most cited sources, and so the adopted paragraph structure, stressing what little the RS say about other languages, is, I believe, best for achieving NPOV in this context. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"what do "The two" and "the former" refer to" - clarified (I hope)
OK.
"What is Stephen L. Gillett " - err, you ask, who? I can't find a bio of him aside from Goodreads here, but he has been invited (allowed? approved?) by Gary Westfahl to contribute to his encyclopedia. So, errr, we could describe him as "one of the contributors to The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy" or specifically as the author of it's Venus' chapter (although he contributed more than one entry to the encyclopedia). He also wrote the book World-Building - Science Fiction Writing Series [10], at least, I assume that's the same person. He may or may not be this scholar.
Doesn't the Greenwood Encyclopedia have contributor bios? Or at least affiliations. Someone over at the Resource Exchange Board might be able to assist. Acc. [11], Stephen P. Gillett contributed articles on Alien Worlds, Comets and Asteroids, Mercury, Venus -- So possibly not Stephen L. Gillett?
In the book, he is signed as L. not P. According to [12] there is a section on editors and contributors, p. 1383, but I am having trouble finding this (maybe it's in another tome?. Ping User:TompaDompa who found the link to IA copy for help (I have to go AFK for now). Oh, and I wouldn't call him an academic, maybe a scholar, since the book is scholarly. Will do so in the next edit pass. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's in volume 3. The relevant information is on page 1388. Given the mention of Reno, it seems this is indeed the same person as this one. Google Books likewise says "Stephen L. Gillett is a research associate at the Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno." about the author of the book World-Building. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For now I've added a description to him as "one of the contributors to The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy", which should give the readers sufficient context for now (red link...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else is available suggest describing him as an academic or scholar.
Re: "dimmed". I think so and none of the other copyeditors took an issue with that.
It's very unidiomatic in (UK) English, imo. "Waned" would be the usual way this would be expressed.
While I don't see a difference, I differ to your expertise and chanced this accordingly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "disinterest" - as above. Could you explain why it's incorrect as nobody else reviewing this article found it to be a problematic word?
See below.
Re: "now known to be a rather hostile environment" - I think this is a useful reminder to the reader why some authors became disinterested in this topic.
Think this whole sentence would benefit from recasting. It's a repeat of the end of the paragraph at the start of this section. One might even swap the two paragraphs ("A romantic, habitable, pre-Mariner Venus" and "Following a brief period") to remove the need for the reminder?
An elegant solution, implemented swap (and removed the redunancy). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "as pictured in seems wrong for lit" - mhm, I changed to depicted, unless you think that's only for pictograms and like, in which case we can change it do described. Although modern books are printed, not scribed.
Depicted or described are both fine.
Re: "need date for Wyndham to pin down subsequent decades", right, except I was asked to remove the date as repetetive (it is given earlier) by another reviewer. Since you are right that it's needed here for context, I've attempted to compromise by adding "from five years later", since it was published in 1932, that's five years after the work cited with date earlier (1927).
OK.
Re: "Under "Terraforming" "Other relevant woks"; aside from the unfortunate typo". I don't see a typo, can you elaborate?
Re: " introducing a list like that without analysis, particularly when there are often no wikilinks to explore, is frustrating". Wikilinks for some works are given earlier in the body, and as far I know, Manual of Style forbids us repeating them in the body (so duplicate links were removed). I don't understand what is frurstrating. There's no deeper analysis given in cited sources which simply mention these works as depicting terraformation of Venus, anything else I could add would violate WP:OR. If the context is unclear, we could merge this with the preceeding sentence, which opens with "The terraforming of Venus subsequently featured in...". Would that help?
I don't think MoS prohibits repeating wikilinks when the earlier one was in an earlier section. I know many at FAC are far more sparing of repeat links than I am but I don't agree that only linking once serves the reader -- one reads an interesting factoid, wants to know more, and can only find out that we have an article on the topic by text searching the article? Thereby losing one's original place? Serve the readers not the MoS.
I think you could delete "Other relevant works include" and just merge but the listiness is a general problem throughout.
I've merged the sentences as I agree it was redundant wording. I am open to wikilinking any specific terms you wish to see linked (although you can be just be bold and wikilink them yourself in text, might be faster). I will however stress that I believed that one link per text (not counting lead) is a rule we are supposed to follow. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Venusians". Something was added, as requested.
OK.
Re: "The whole list here is very hard to parse.". No idea how to handle this, given that the cited source contains nothing but a list. Any addition would violate OR.
The addition of semi-colons has helped a bit. But "intelligent giant bees, ants and worm larvae, giant monstrous insects" isn't clear.
Do note the semicolon before giant monstrous insects. I am not sure how to reword it better, here's the excerpt from the cited work that I am working with for this particular sentence/paragraph - numbers are cyphered work names, which one has to cross-check elsewhere in the book (print can't have hyperlinks...). Index entry for "Venus, inhabitants." Excerpt from the middle of the list: Dwarves: 13. Intelligent giant bees: 693, 694, 695. Intelligent giant ants: 693, 694, 695, 698. Intelligent worm larvae, surgically inserted into host brains: 695, 698. Giant monstrous insect-like forms: 1179. Living colors: 576." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Venusian society and culture has been described as both inferior and superior to human, varying from work to work." Bit of a pointless sentence. " The source says nothing else, just notes that some works showed Venusians as living in an inferior setting compared to Earth, and some, superior. It's, errr, analysis. Not great, but that's what the source says. Any analysis to lessen the list of examples seems like a good thing, no?
You could give an example of each perhaps? And what does inferior/superior mean? More advanced? More moral?
The source, being a list-like index, does not define what it means by those adjectives, so speculation would be ORish. That said, I double checked, and it does say "cultural level", and later, "culturally and scientifically", so I've added that phrase to the article. I've also add some examples. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "James William Barlow and John Munro penned descriptions of Venusian civilizations, respectively," respectively misplaced, and the whole sentence seems tagged on." I don't understant the problem with the word respectively, can you elaborate? I have moved some sentences around and added a bit more analysis, although I hope it doesn't get too close to OR, given a lot of is interpresting a list.
I think you need to move the respectively to the end of the sentence. Otherwise it applies to "descriptions of Venusian civilizations" which doesn't make sense.
Moved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably recast for clarity: "James William Barlow and John Munro penned descriptions of Venusian civilizations, respectively, in History of a Race of Immortals without a God (1891) and A Trip to Venus (1897)" --> "Descriptions of Venusian civilizations are found in James William Barlow's History of a Race of Immortals without a God (1891) and John Munro's A Trip to Venus (1897)" --or-- "James William Barlow's History of a Race of Immortals without a God (1891) and John Munro's A Trip to Venus (1897) both contain descriptions of Venusian civilizations."
Re: "Literary seems an odd word here given the prevalence of pulp." Pulp literature is a thing. But I am open to consider synonyms, if you'd like to suggest any?
print media, printed media, textual works ?
Changed to print media. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "The Soviet film Planeta Bur (1962) was another movie from that time period." Pointless sentence." It's setting up context. We can't have just lists and examples, right? But we could cut it, if other reviewers concur (or if anyone removes it themselves, be bold, I won't revert such changes).
Suggest just cutting "was another movie from that time period. It " and running the sentence on.
Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a note about television. I did look for such mentions but failed to find anything outside comics and films (hence their sections). If the ref pans out, I'll certainly add Pathfinders to Venus (1961) as an example of a TV treatment. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just got pinged as I was going offline; very quickly, I fixed the typo (wok for work) which is why you're not still finding it. "Disinterest" does not mean lack of interest, but rather something akin to lack of conflict of interest, lack of bias. Will revisit tomorrow when back online but it won't be till late, sorry, as I'm out all evening. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worry. I'll ping User:Nihil novi re suggestions for what word to use instead of dinsinterest, anyone else is of couse welcome to offer suggestions. Although my check with dictionary does suggest that "lack of interest in something" is one of the two meanings of the term disinterest (I was in fact not even aware that "lack of conflict of interest" is another meaning, leave and learn, thanks). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My dictionary and Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disinterest#Noun) also give the two meanings for "disinterest".
Not knowing the context in the article, it's hard for me to suggest an unequivocal wording.
I tend to reserve "disinterest" for contexts involving "freedom from selfish bias or self-interest; impartiality".
For the other meaning, I might substitute something like "lack of interest" or "indifference".
I hope that helps.
Nihil novi (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The related adjectives "disinterested" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disinterested) and "uninterested" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uninterested) carry the same duality of meanings.
Nihil novi (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up "disinterest" and (to my surprise) you are right that it can now be legitimately used to mean lack of interest/uninterest; apparently that was the original meaning, it then diverged, but has recently diverged back again through repetitive (what I'd characterise as) misuse. In my copy-editing days, this would have been considered grammatically incorrect, and it still feels barbarous. In any case it is ambiguous and so far better to recast the sentence to remove any ambiguity, along with the prospect of readers of my generation considering it ungrammatical. But I've suggested rewriting/reordering that whole section above. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Espresso Addict ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fear fundamentally my review was that the article did not meet featured prose standards, nor did it meet featured article comprehensiveness, neither of which I believe can readily be addressed in a short time frame. I also offered a number of minor points, some of which have now been fixed but agreeing on the remainder will not affect my overall view. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been open for a long time, a large amount of work has been done on it, yet it still seems far from achieving a consensus to promote. This being so I am going to time it out and archive it. The nominator may wish to consider GoCER and/or PR and/or working further with Espresso Addict and TompaDompa prior to bringing the article back to FAC. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Venus_in_fiction/archive1&oldid=1118614948"