Jump to content

Talk:Our Friends from Frolix 8/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 07:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 09:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Staking my claim. Review to follow over the weekend, I hope. —Kusma (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review

[edit]

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.

  • Lead: will need to comment on completeness / coverage later
  • from 1968-69 should be from 1968 to 1969, see MOS:DATERANGE
  • the eponymous friend from Frolix 8 the title is plural; is there just one?
  • It is best known clarify that "It" is The book or The novel; similar in second paragraph that starts with "It" without an antecedent. There is generally a lot of "it" that could be perhaps sometimes replaced by a short form such as Frolix.
  • Plot: Generally, I think some tightening and shorter sentences could improve the flow. I am not totally clear on the role of Charley and why everyone is in love with her. I may need to revisit this once I understand the plot better.
  • Background and publication: again, do not use from 1968-69
  • "The novel was written on commission for Ace Books" do we know when it was commissioned?
  • "outline differs in many ways" is it worth giving an example?
  • When was the French translation published? Any reason for talking only about French, not about the 1978 German one? (There are probably others but I haven't done much research). Italian translation.
    • I talked about the French one because it was talked about in a source specifically on the author's works in France. I will see if I can find citations for the rest of the languages it has been translated into - isfdb has a good list, but is not itself reliable PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the Italian one. None of the other ones were mentioned in RS that I can see
  • Actually, from that Italian book, it seems he started writing Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said in 1970, so the "hiatus" is more from publishing/finishing than from writing per se?
  • Generally, it would be nice to have a little bit of background on PKD here ("PKD was an American sci fi author most well known for ..."). I assume he is sufficiently well studied so we can say where Frolix sits in his oeuvre in wikivoice instead of having to quote a single scholar here.
    • tried to address this. this is one of his less studied novels and opinions seem to differ as to what period it falls into
  • Themes: The theme of power struggles, utilized in previous Dick books, is returned to here. which previous books? does the sentence have to be in passive voice? ("One of the themes that Dick returns to in this novel is that of power struggles, which he had also addressed in YYY").
    • combined that with the next sentence since they're both about struggles
  • Who is Michael Rogers? "class struggle" might not even need attribution
    • rewrote
  • a "partial reversing" of the premise of The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch in what sense? this reads to me like teasing the reader without explaining
  • it did belong in the surrounding period of Dick's writings, throughtying into other works of the time try to simplify, perhaps just it tied in with other works of the time?
  • Who is the "God" found in space? He is not mentioned in the "Plot" section.
  • Kim Stanley Robinson could do with a gloss here to explain that he is writing as a SF scholar here (he is of course far more famous as SF author).
  • The God quotes could do with a cite to the book (always better to cite directly instead of indirectly). If you haven't read the quote in the book, best to WP:SAYWHERE.
    • I have the book and have read the book, but I have one of the newer edition copies. There are so many different editions of this book with different paginations I'm not sure how helpful page numbers are. For me it's on page 50. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception: you are inconsistent whether it is "SF" or "sf", even outside of direct quotes.
  • The reception section isn't particularly engaging; you could check out WP:CRS for some general ideas how to improve it.
  • I know nothing about A. E. van Vogt so I can't really appreciate the comparisons; is it worth glossing him?
    • It could be done, he's often compared to Dick. I'm not sure how to do it given he's first introduced in the sentence. I guess I could add that he is a sci-fi writer in parathesis after the quote, if you think that would improve it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added that he was a science fiction author in a later sentence
  • while it and other works about the same time had poorly constructed plots, it was an excellent satire of the objectivity of TV commentary in parts a bit convoluted, especially "in parts". They criticised the poorly constructed plot of Frolix but praised its satire of TV commentary?

First read through done; will comment more when discussing GA criteria. —Kusma (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’ll start working through these. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay after the first changes I got distracted. Back to this now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few prose issues that were introduced in the changes that need some copyediting, but other than that it looks quite nice now. —Kusma (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks

[edit]

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1273270459

  • Random numbers 1 8 14 17 20 21 24 26 27 32
  • 1: page numbers would help to clarify that you are citing a chapter, not the entire book (although perhaps it would be easier to just cite the book, as it is single author). 1a: content fine.
  • 8b,c fine.
  • 14a fine.
  • 17 ok
  • 20: the "dissertation" version of this is actually available on Internet archive at [2] but with shitty metadata so it is hard to find. Pagination is different but content seems fine. Again, why cite the chapter instead of the book?

Rest in a little while. —Kusma (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m confused what you mean by citing the chapter instead of the book? When all of my page citations were within one chapter I noted the chapter so it would be easier to find and more topical. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand your intention. It had the opposite effect for me, as adding the "chapter" puts it first in the citation template so it looks like the "chapter" is the most important piece of information. This made me search for "Lost in Space" kim robinson instead of "The Novels of Philip K. Dick" kim robinson and so I didn't find the source at first. (My brain doesn't particularly notice what is in quotes and what is in italics). Your method is certainly acceptable, but it does not work for me. In any case, this is not a GA issue. —Kusma (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21: ok (described as "image" here, but "joke" in 20).
  • 24: ok
  • 26: ok
  • 27: this is actually p. 134, but why aren't you citing Andrevon directly as well? Or you could cite Andrevon and add a "translated in Bozzetto" note to it.
    • fixed page number. The Andrevon citation is direct, on p. 165 he says it "on pense à certains des plus ratés des van Vogt", which is what Bozzetto was translating
  • 32: ok

Other than one page number, no issues with spot checks, passed. —Kusma (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General comments and GA criteria

[edit]
  • Prose: could be polished a bit more, a few suggestions for improvement above.
  • Referencing and sourcing ok at GA level, some comments above.
  • Some more background on PKD would be very helpful
    • I added a bit, but Dick is so well established that most of the sources don't give much information on him that's useful for this kind of thing. Still, added briefly.
  • Anything about sales/compensation for PKD, or about further editions of the book?
    • I added some stuff about his contract from the collection of his letters. There is a section in one letter where they go over the sales for some of his books, and bring up Frolix, but do not evaluate the sales :/
  • Images are (surprisingly) free; caption could optionally mention the photographer
    • added the photographer, also was able to find a citation for the cover artist
  • Lead is a fair summary of the article.

Done reviewing for now, waiting for your responses. —Kusma (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final prose issues (please also check my copyedits to the article):

  • a Frolixian known as Morgo Rahn Wilc, a protoplasmic over a million-year-old sentient blob of 90 tons from the Proxima system. order of adjectives is off here. [3] [4] "protoplasmic" should come after the age I think, and generally this is a bit convoluted. Perhaps "from the Proxima" system should be with the Frolixian?
    • rephrased
  • Provoni has conversations with Morgo, who has encircled his spaceship, questioning him about his intentions and human nature. why does Provoni ask the alien about human nature?
    • tried to make this clearer that it's more them discussing stuff on the way back. I mean, what else is there to do in space
  • according to Dick in a letter, he delivered it late do you need "in a letter"? if you do, better "a letter of Dick to X" or "a statement of Dick in a letter".
    • yeah this isn't needed, removed
  • When was the hardcover edition published? It seems it was after the paperback, but you only mention the hardcover in the image caption.
    • no reliable source says, which I think is very annoying, but user generated sources say 1971. I just removed the image, I think that cover looks cool but very annoyingly only user generated sources like isfdb or what I think is a fansite cover the edition history in a somewhat complete way
  • Themes section ends and Reception section starts with a few repetitions of "Warrick said", and she is introduced only at the third mention (I just edited a "his" into "Dick's" early on because I didn't know Warrick was a "she".
    • moved her introduction to the first time she is brought up, this was probably because I moved so many things around

Think that's all. PARAKANYAA, if you can tackle these issues, we should be done. —Kusma (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      • All done, yes! Promoting.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.