Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Venus in fiction/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 August 2023 [1].

Venus in fiction edit

Nominator(s): TompaDompa (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC), Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here[reply]

Following the successful nomination for Mars in fiction, I bring you our other planetary neighbour's depiction in fiction. Compared to Mars, Venus has made fewer and less influential appearances in fiction, resulting in a comparatively sparse secondary literature which is reflected in a significantly shorter article here on Wikipedia. This is not to say that Venus's history in fiction is less interesting—while the depiction of Mars was heavily influenced by observations of its surface that later turned out to be mistaken, the depiction of Venus was equally influenced by the fact that its surface could not be observed at all through the planet's thick cloud layer. Thus, while science fiction writers thought they had a pretty good understanding of the conditions on the surface of Mars, the Venusian surface was a complete mystery to them, opening the door for all kinds of imaginative speculation.

The article was first nominated last year by my co-nominator Piotrus. Since that nomination was closed, we have collaborated on expanding, restructuring, and copyediting the article—and believe that it is now ready for a second look. TompaDompa (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have left messages at the user talk pages of the participants of the previous FAC, alerting them to this second nomination and (neutrally) requesting their input here. TompaDompa (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Piotrus edit

I have little to add to what TD wrote above, other than to confirm that I believe the article is very comprehensive and well-written. We have found I think pretty much all relevant works on this topic in English, although we would be happy to hear from anyone who thinks we missed something. There is the invevitable issue that some sources may exist in other languages we are not proficient in (and that none of our sources allued to), but this form of systemic bias is sadly inevitable in the current system. Again, if anyone knows of works discussing this topic in Chinese, Spanish or such, and can use it to expand this further, we would welcome such help. If not, well, I rest my case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • I'll have a look soon. A few preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a good deal of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[2]
    • Assuming we're only talking about the body (i.e. not links occurring both in the WP:LEAD and the body, and not considering links in reference templates, image captions and the like), I count four: Brian Aldiss, Farewell Fantastic Venus, H. G. Wells, and The War of the Worlds. All of these are linked in the first paragraph of the first section. The first two are repeated in the last paragraph of the "Later depictions" section and the others in the last paragraph of the "Lifeforms" section. This seems entirely reasonable to me from a WP:DUPLINKS perspective (especially considering its recent amendment and the discussion that led to that change). The repeated links are separated by more than 2,000 words of prose (and in the latter case, by essentially the entire length of the article). TompaDompa (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only those highlighted by the script, yes. The intro and article are separate texts. I don't see why any duplinks are needed in such a short article, but no big deal to me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional names and terms could be linked in image captions.
  • This[3] image has an empty source field.
  • "Early depictions" Doesn't this mainly refer to visual representations? I know it can also mean verbally, but that's uncommon.
  • "in works visiting multiple locations" What is meant by this? Where characters visit, where the reader gets a description of these places, or is it non-fiction?
    • The intended meaning is the second one—the reader gets a description. That would typically but not necessarily mean that characters visit (though certainly the narrative does). "Visiting" could here be replaced by e.g. "touching upon", "dealing with", "portraying", or indeed "depicting". TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Could something to this effect be added to clarify this, then? FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "around the turn of the century, with Martian canals and a civilization that built them" I think you should add "supposed Martian canals", to make it clear that they are not real structures.
    • I was about to, but then I realized that it would look a bit odd to add a disclaimer to the canals but not the civilization (which of course is also not real). Any suggestions about how to solve that issue? TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If you say "with supposed Martian canals and a civilization that built them" I think most readers would understand that "supposed" refers to everything mentioned after. Also, I presume everyone knows there isn't a civilisation on Venus, but much less know that there aren't canals. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Very well then. TompaDompa (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "introduced by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli" When?
    • The sources do not say. I'll see if I can find one that does. TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "compared with the image of Mars in fiction." Shouldn't this be linked earlier when you already explained that Mars has more fiction devoted to it?
    • That's an option. I want to link both Mars and Mars in fiction, and I want to avoid creating any kind of WP:EASTEREGG situation. It would be possible to replace "[...] never approaching the popularity of Mars. On the subject, Westfahl writes that while Mars has a distinctive body of major works [...]" with "[...] never approaching the popularity of Mars in fiction. On the subject, Westfahl writes that while Mars has a distinctive body of major works [...]" (while of course removing the later link to Mars in fiction), if you think that would be better. TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that could make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually you wouldn't spell out a person's entire name after first mention, now you do it for at least Ray Bradbury, perhaps others.
  • "is surprised to find that Venus does not have jungles" So what was it presented as having instead?
  • "that they would have generated atmospheric updrafts that would have broken up" Repetitive with "would have" twice in the same sentence.
  • "Others envisioned Venus as a panthalassic planet" Based on any scientific theories?
    • Yes. The reasons for the different visions of Venus at this time (e.g. assuming that a thick cloud cover meant abundant quantities of water) apply both to scientific and literary visions—the latter largely stemming from the former. TompaDompa (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      But the reason I ask is could these be stated in the article, like you do with other theories? FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      They are? The third paragraph of the "Early depictions" section outlines why water was thought to be abundant on Venus ("A common assumption was that the Venusian clouds were made of water, as clouds on Earth are, and consequently the planet was most often portrayed as having a wet climate. This sometimes meant vast oceans, but more commonly swamps and jungles."), and the second sentence of the "Ocean" subsection explains where the idea that it was all ocean came from ("Large land masses were thought impossible due to the assumption that they would have generated atmospheric updrafts disrupting the planet's solid cloud layer."). TompaDompa (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, a brief mention, I guess it's easy to forget when reviewing piece by piece. FunkMonk (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stories about survival in less extreme conditions had appeared in stories such" Repetitive with double "stories". FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Later, space probes such as Mariner 2 in 1962" A bit clunky, could be smoother if "in 1962" came after "later," or maybe "later" isn't needed at all, as the reader already know it's later, so could be "by 1962" or similar.
    • It's not only Mariner 2—the Venera probes also played an important part—so I don't want to overstate the 1962 date. I've tweaked it a bit—see what you think. TompaDompa (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These themes were not without precedent in earlier works" Could specify if at the time this was before the harshness was known.
  • "The role-playing games Space: 1889 and Mutant Chronicles likewise use a deliberately retro depiction of Venus" Like you do for the books, games and other media could also need release dates for context.
  • "are kidnapped humans that have been genetically engineered to survive on Venus." By who?
  • "such squid-like" Such as?
  • I wonder why beasts are listed before Venusians? I'd assume most readers would expect the civilisation to be covered before the fauna.
    • I don't know if there is a particular reason it was initially done this way, but I do think it makes sense. While I see your point, the fictional Venus has mostly been characterized as a "wild" planet rather than as a "civilized" one (for lack of better words)—in contrast to Mars. The dominant portrayal was prehistoric jungles after all, so I think it follows nicely to talk about dinosaurs first and civilizations second. TompaDompa (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "Robert A. Heinlein portrayed Venusian swamps in several unrelated stories including "The Green Hills of Earth" (1947)" ..." While Venus is mentioned several times in "The Green Hills of Earth", the only description is in Rhysling's song, where he says, "We rot in the molds of Venus,/We retch at her tainted breath./Foul are her flooded jungles,/Crawling with unclean death." The rest is mentions of Venusberg and "Venus Ellis Isle". I'm not sure that counts as a portrayal of Venusian swamps, especially since Rhysling is being poetic and is not there when he is saying this. It just doesn't seem to be in the same league as Between Planets and Podkayne of Mars, both of which I'd agree prominently feature Venusian swamps. I'd strike the mention of "Green Hills". Now, if the source mentions "Logic of Empire", I'd substitute that.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "labourers" ... "colonization" Is this British or American English?
    • I believe the proper and honest answer to that is "no"—I don't speak (or write) either British or American English, and I don't believe my co-nominator Piotrus does either. At any rate, I changed it to "workers" to sidestep the issue. TompaDompa (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd try to be consistent though. I didn't see anything else though. Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Venus is home to a dragon in Heinlein's Between Planets (1951)" More than a single specimen, surely? We encounter multiple dragons, Sir Isaac and his household, Daisy, others whose names are not mentioned. And possibly there are multiple dragon species, from Chapter XII: "the dragons had many evolutionary cousins, bearing much the same relationship to them that gorillas do to men. Many of these creatures are amphibious—another reason why Venus colonials do not swim."
    • Right. The cited source only mentions one, so I added another source to verify the plural. TompaDompa (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • "When portrayed, the native sentient inhabitants, Venusians, were often portrayed as": avoid repetition -- "portrayed" or "portrayal" are used five times in the lead.
  • I don't think the bracketed Wikidata link for Stephen Gillett and a couple of other redlinks is worth it -- the landing page doesn't have obvious links to read those other articles, and it's not a user-friendly page for a random reader to visit without that.
    • You're not wrong, but I do think it's good to WP:Build the web. I suppose I could replace them with plain WP:REDLINKS, if you think it would be better. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Interlanguage links seem like a good idea to me, to whichever language has the best article, if we don't have one, but I think a link to Wikidata is going to confuse far more readers than it helps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright. I would say blue link > interlanguage link > Wikidata link > red link > plain text, but I have replaced the Wikidata links now. TompaDompa (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Struck. I can see opinions could vary on this, and I wouldn't oppose on this if you ended up restoring those links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first part of the "Early depictions" sections has a little repetition. We get Westfahl saying Venus doesn't have a canon as Mars does; then Aldiss saying there are fewer voyages to Venus than to Mars. I was going to suggest that we drop Aldiss's and Westfahl's names and integrate these statements more, but since you followed these with quotes from each I let it go. Then in the next paragraph we have "The absence of a common vision of Venus resulted in the less coherent mythology of Venus, particularly compared with the image of Mars in fiction" and the quote about it being a cosmic Rorschach test. I think these latter two points would be better associated with the material from Aldiss and Westfahl. I'm not sure we need to attribute inline as much as you're doing. It seems to be a consensus that, e.g., there are fewer stories about Venus than about Mars, and that Venus's uncertain nature led to a wider variety of stories; giving inline attribution can give the reader the impression that scholars disagree.
    • The Aldiss quote was there because I thought it was neat; I've removed it. I've also condensed and restructured this a fair bit, but I've tried to make sure that it's still clear that Venus has both fewer and less significant works than Mars, since this is a point that Westfahl emphasizes. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the first three paragraphs of "Early depictions", I think it's doing three things. It lists fiction such as Swedenborg that predates the era in which any sort of scientific understanding was the basis for speculation; it gives the opinion of critics about why there is such a disparity of depictions of Venus, and why it's less popular than Mars; and it gives the early ideas -- water, oceans, swamps, jungles, the Carboniferous. I think these are mixed together too much; it feels back-and-forth.
    • I've condensed and restructured this a fair bit. See if you think it is an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Replying to both this and the previous point: yes, I think this is better. A couple more suggestions:
      • "Venus has a thick layer of clouds that prevents telescopic observation of the surface, giving writers free rein to imagine any kind of world below": could we add an "until the 1960s" or some similar clause in the middle of this sentence? (Was there a specific NASA mission that killed off the old scenarios?)
        • Tweaked. Mariner 2 was the first, but the sources vary in how much they emphasize that probe compared to later ones in this context. TompaDompa (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suggest moving the sentence that starts with "One of the many visions" to start the following paragraph: we're moving from general statements to a list of scenarios at that point.
        • Done. There isn't really any ideal solution for this—the tidally locked vision needs to be mentioned somewhere, but the rest of the paragraph all leads up to the dinosaur-inhabited jungles and swamps. TompaDompa (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest cutting the reference to "sword and planet" per out conversations elsewhere; even if that article survives I don't think it's worth a link.
  • I'm not sure what you can do about it, but the sectioning -- Early depictions with subsections on types of planet vs. Later depictions with subsections on types of story -- doesn't really work for the Colonization section. The cutoff date for the early/late split seems to be the early 1960s, but most of the colonization fiction mention predates that. And the paragraph starting "These themes were not without precedent in earlier works" also implies a tension between the two structures.
    • I've experimented a bit, and ended up splitting off a "Human survival" section. See what you think. I'm not entirely sure about what the best headings are for the new sections and may end up tweaking them further—feel free to make suggestions. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks good; I'll defer striking till I've had another full read through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Superhero Tommy Tomorrow": suggest making this "Comics superhero Tommy Tomorrow": I had to follow the link to understand that this was a comics character.

That's it for a first read-through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above seems good now; will read through again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:

  • "In scientific circles, life on Venus was increasingly viewed as unlikely from the 1930s on, as more advanced methods for observing Venus suggested that its atmosphere lacks oxygen.  In the Space Age, space probes starting with the 1962 Mariner 2 found that Venus's surface temperature was in the range 800–900 °F (400–500 °C), and atmospheric pressure at ground-level was many times that of Earth's." This mixes present tense ("lacks") with past ("was in the range", "was many times"). I think these should be consistent. My preference would be for past tense, but both are defensible.
  • "Several writers have suggested that colonists on the surface of Venus may have to lead a nomadic life to stay in a favourable position relative to the Sun." The tense of "may" is inconsistent with "have". Either "Several writers have suggested that colonists on the surface of Venus might have to lead a nomadic life to stay in a favourable position relative to the Sun" or "Several writers suggest in their stories that colonists on the surface of Venus may have to lead a nomadic life to stay in a favourable position relative to the Sun" could work; the latter preserves the present tense you're using for fiction but I think is a bit clumsier.
  • The reference to Venusian sea monsters in Clarke's The Deep Range surprised me; I took a look at the source, and I don't think it fully supports the wording in the article as it only mentions that an advertisement describes Venusian sea monsters, not what the advertisement is for. I had a quick skim through my copy but couldn't find the reference; are you using the text of the novel itself to support this wording? If so I'd cite that too.
    • The source says "Arthur C. Clarke's The Deep Range (1957) describes an advertisement portraying the huge ancient monsters that still swam in Venusian oceans". I tweaked it to say that they are commercialized instead. TompaDompa (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I found the passage; it's an advertisement seeking to recruit people to work on Venus as ocean wardens (sea farming for the meat, as far as I can tell). I've supported below, but I'll leave this unstruck as perhaps it could be tweaked a bit further given the context in the book. My copy is published by Pan Books, London, 1977, ISBN 0-330-02570-8; pp. 145-6. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This trope was repeated, among others, in": does "among others" refer to other stories that re-use the trope? If so I'd cut it -- you have "as well as in" later in the sentence, which does that work.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. One minor tweak noted above that doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Reviewing this version, spot-check upon request. Is #2 a reliable source? Ditto for Tor.com. Cite #32 throws an error message. Source information seems good, but I wonder if all these science fiction authors are the best source available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the error message. Brian Aldiss is certainly a reliable source in this context (there's a reason other sources such as Stephen L. Gillett and Gary Westfahl cite this particular work). Tor.com is also reliable—comparable to the online version of Locus (magazine) or Clarkesworld Magazine, I would say. Science fiction authors are often the best sources on these topics, not least because the overlap between authors and scholars is substantial. TompaDompa (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. Keep in mind that I didn't do a spot-check nor am very familiar with the sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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/archive2&oldid=1171926938"