Talk:Saturn in fiction/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maplestrip (talk · contribs) 12:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I would like to review this lovely article, as the subject appeals to me a lot. I expect I'll finish up writing a decent review within a few hours. My review will be split up between aspects that need to be fixed for the article to meet GA criteria, and miscellaneous comments of varying importance. I like to be thorough, and I hope we can make this article even better together :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Please expand upon the lede section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources check out, no dead links, lots of experts in the field, properly published. I was able to check the content of many of the sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Focus is very solidly on Saturn and its moons in modern science-fiction. Could maybe cover non-science-fiction and myth as well.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Two Commons images, all good.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Primary concerns

• The lede section feels short to me. I notice that science-fiction isn't even mentioned in it.
  • I have expanded it a bit. Let me know if you want it to be expanded further. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Westfahl concludes about early Saturn stories that "one can discern no general image of the planet, except for the usual tendency to suspect its inhabitants are more advanced than humans." I believe this should be communicated in the "Early depictions" section. I think the lack of "general image" is important.
  • I have added the quote. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• The caption below the image of Saturn must be cited.
  • Done. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments

• Humanity has known and viewed Saturn since prehistory. Are there any appearances of Saturn in fiction before its first appearance in science-fiction? I recognize that this may be hard to research.
  • I have found no mentions in the sources of anything earlier than Voltaire's Micromégas (1752), no counterpart to Lucian of Samosata's second-century CE A True Story (which is about a journey to the Moon) or similar. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Could you add information about when approximately people learned that Saturn is gaseous rather than solid?
  • I would if I could find sources about it. It's been surprisingly difficult. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I think the change in headers largely resolves any confusion :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• "Exceptions to this general trend" should be ".. these general trends", assuming that it refers to Saturnians being either warlike, evil, or more advanced than humans.
  • It's only about the last one, so the singular is correct. I have tried to make this clearer by introducing a paragraph break. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Ooh, with the paragraph break it's a lot clearer what you were trying to do here, and I really like it! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• "Saturn is also sometimes portrayed as devoid of life" possibly important to specify that this is about a solid Saturn.
  • I have tried to make this clearer by tweaking the headings. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I think this tweaking works well for this article :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• You could describe Helium-3 as a "popular miracle substance" per the source, or at least describe it as valuable within some science-fiction stories. Right now it's unclear why the presence of Helium-3 is of interest.
  • Glossed as "sought-after". TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Perfect! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Rather than "Outside of literature", I would recommend "In cinema" or something like that.
  • Done. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• "One of the rings is painted red by a religious group" unclear if this is a metaphor or literal; if it's a metaphor then it should be rewritten to be clearer and more specific. The source isn't clear either, you're free to just cut this sentence completely.
  • I'll admit that the idea that it could be metaphorical did not occur to me. I've added an additional source which gives a bit more detail. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• I would move the image of Saturn and its beautiful rings to the top of the article. You're free to keep the same caption.
  • Done. I have also experimented with a different image layout, seen here. Let me know which you prefer. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    • This is a hard choice; I think they're approximately equally good. The alternative option does highlight Saturn in fiction, so it might be a better choice? I personally like the photograph at the top more. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Have Saturn's moons always drawn more interest since the earliest sci-fi, or did interest in them increase in the 20th century?
  • I would suspect the latter, but have refrained from stating so to avoid engaging in WP:Original research. The sources are a bit vague on this point. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    • The eternal issue. Nothing you can do about it, I think it's fine. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• "The satellite system hides an artificial world in John Varley's 1979–1984 Gaea trilogy that begins with the novel Titan." – this paragraph raises more questions than it answers. I cannot check two of these sources completely, but I hope you can expand upon this a bit. This book series seems to be all about Saturn and the first book is called Titan, but this is the only mention of it and its significance is unclear.
  • I've expanded it a bit and added an additional source. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I still feel like there's something missing here, but it's a nice expansion. I was confused because I assumed the title "Titan" refered to Titan, but it apparently refers to the artificial world instead! You might want to remove "begins with the novel Titan," as the first's book's title is not very relevant. You might want to add something about the series being about a mission to explore the lesser moons. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• (I particularly love the "Titan" section! I think this is really interesting and well put-together!)
  • Thank you! It's a lot easier when somebody else (in this case Stephen Baxter, in 1997) has already done a deep-dive into the subject. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• I would remove the "variant title" part of the image caption and replace it with something like "showing a telepathic threadworm from Titan."
  • I think it's important to both note that this is the work discussed in the body and explain why the title in the image doesn't match. I've tweaked the caption by adding parentheses and a brief description of the alien. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Seems good. This does connect it better to the text. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• References section has a weird gap in the middle sometimes at some screenwidths, after David Darling.
  • I believe this is an issue with Template:Multiref2 adding a bunch of extra line breaks that would probably need to be fixed at that template rather than here. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Images that might of interest for this article: File:Amazing stories 195103.jpg, File:4 planet-saturn--44967.jpg. An image from this category might be of specific interest: [1]. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I want to avoid using an illustration of a view from a moon of Saturn that is impossible. I've been reluctant to use the illustrations from A Journey in Other Worlds since the image quality is unfortunately a bit poor, but I've added one I think is at least okay. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Haha, I watched that video too. I appreciate the concern. I would argue that it's inherent to how Saturn is portrayed in fiction. I think the Other Worlds image works well, I do like how you can see the rings. The low image quality is a real shame, maybe someone can make a better scan sometime. It's fine. I do wonder if this perspective on Saturn's rings is at all realistic, but seeing as it's taking place on a solid planet... who cares? :p ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Preliminary conclusions

I think the article looks good, and its sources check out well as far as I can see. I notice, and this is a difficult issue to overcome, that the article is largely a list of examples. The more you can draw the examples together into broader observations and conclusions, the better, and I think you did an impressive job with it already. You might want to trim out some examples from The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, as they come across as particularly arbitrary and have no larger point to them. Moreover, I feel like the article might be missing a larger discussion of Saturn's aesthetics. Saturn is broadly considered one of the most beautiful objects in the Solar System, and it might be possible to expand on that here. These are certainly things to consider if you intend to improve the article further, but for now, it is very close to GA. I would like you to at least handle the Primary concerns, but none of these should be particularly difficult to fix :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It's always a balance with these types of articles. If I had my way the article would be wall-to-wall analysis of overarching trends, but the sources are unfortunately comparatively light on that and instead discuss individual examples more. As it stands, I strive for a fair amount of variety in the set of examples to give readers an idea of the topic's diversity, and include as much analysis as possible without straying into WP:OR territory. I have at any rate responded to all the issues brought up above and hopefully addressed most of them satisfactorily. Ping Maplestrip. TompaDompa (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes this is a very familiar issue to me. I'm impressed how well you did, and your recent changes made the narrative flow even better. The article is definitely GA-class now, you did a beautiful job on this article! I will go through the steps to pass this article, congratulations and thank you :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)