Talk:Spore drive/GA1

GA review

Passed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Very Polite Person (talk · contribs) 15:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 19:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this as part of my GA pledge from User: It is a wonderful world. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

All images' copyrights are fine. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stability is also good. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:NPOV issues. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only Earwig issue is a quote. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could a similarities section be added where it mentions any similar things from other media? History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. Sort of FTL drives that differ from the impulse/warp model, which are kind of common tropes now under many science fiction media? I like that idea.

Would we need initial WP:RS that binds us into starting the comparison, or that invoke the spore drive and thus the comparison off that? I think that could be possible, I still have sections of that book of academic essays to get through. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the second option of invoking the spore drive would be fine, thank you for your swift response to my comments. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it turned out to actually be a bit of slim pickings, but there aren't (by memory and searching) that many other even reasonably well-known organic-based FTL concepts in fiction (or I just don't know about them).

What do you think? Edits here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good, pass. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No major prose issues. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will spotcheck sources 9, 12, and 21. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All were good. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.