Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sun 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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 September 2023 [1].

Sun in fiction[edit]

Nominator(s): TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After my previous nominations for Mars in fiction and Venus in fiction, we move on to the Sun, which has had rather a different history of being depicted in fiction. Somewhat surprisingly, it was portrayed as a physical location—and inhabited—as far back as classical antiquity. In more recent times, fictional depictions have instead mostly focused on its importance for life on Earth, though it is still occasionally visited or even inhabited. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unimportant stuff (not review) from Brachy0008[edit]

I’m not officially reviewing it, but I just wanted to stop by. I noticed some stuff that might/might not make it a FA.

  • There are two citations in the lead.
  • It is reasonably sourced, which is okay. However, I am a bit concerned by the non-merging of the sources, not sure whether it is part of the criteria, I am inexperienced in FA territory.

Thanks, Brachy08 (Talk) 06:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. The citations in the lead are there because this material does not appear (and thus is not cited) in the body. I didn't find any place where I thought it fit, but if you (or anybody else) have a suggestion I'm certainly open to it. Merging references is not a FA requirement (compare e.g. my earlier FA Mars in fiction), and in cases like these were there are some key sources that are used heavily in various combinations I think it is directly counter-productive (though others may disagree). TompaDompa (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, WP:LEAD... Brachy08 (Talk) 09:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the relative uncommonness of the Sun being portrayed in fiction is the kind of basic fact that is appropriate to mention in the lead even if not mentioned in the body (but it needs to be sourced). Or were you getting at something different? TompaDompa (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

TompaDompa: Sorry but I can't add any more than what I wrote back in April. ww2censor (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify why you believe this meets the URAA requirements? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Created in 1961 => entered the PD in Italy in 1981 => in PD in the US was not restored under URAA as not published in the US, not given a US copyright, and in the PD in Italy on 1996. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL[edit]

Hey there! Congrats on the Mars in fiction TFA btw, really enjoyed reading that one! GeraldWL 04:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's very kind. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to some of the replies, feel free to look at 'em. Also hope I'm not being inappropriate here haha, but if you're interested please check out my PR as I'm eyeing for a FAC. GeraldWL 04:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tompa, I'mma move all the unresolved discussions here since my mind has trouble navigating. The remaining ones as I see are the quotebox dash, the combustion image, "night sky" and "marginalized groups" overlink, and further reading subs. Also one new comment: in the See also caption, you said "planets" but there's the Moon.
Since we have pretty strong opinions on the image, I'll pause in arguing further first to see if I perhaps have suggestions. In the meantime, if you wish respond to the other unresolved cmts please do so here :) GeraldWL 04:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my replies the unresolved comments brought up previously. On the image in the "See also" section: I don't think it's a problem. It's strictly speaking correct (clicking on a planet does indeed bring you to the relevant article) even if it is technically incomplete (the caption doesn't mention that clicking on the Moon does likewise). More importantly, I expect people to infer that clicking on the Moon would do the same thing—or to flip the perspective, I expect that readers would be very surprised indeed if clicking on the Moon did not bring them to Moon in science fiction even if the caption only specifies that clicking on planets will bring them to the relevant articles. Any phrasing that also includes the Moon would necessarily be more clunky ("Clicking on a planet or the Moon leads to [...]", "Clicking on a celestial object leads to [...]", and so on), so I think this is the best solution. I think it's worth noting that the same phrasing is used on Mars in fiction and Venus in fiction, and none of the FAC reviewers there were confused by the caption—suggesting that it is intuitive enough. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. There shouldn't be any further comments then-- I'm still pretty weirded out by the night sky and marginalized links, as I don't think anyone would confuse it for any other "night sky" or "marginalized groups"-- as well as the combustion image. However I won't hold on to that for too long, so I'll give this a support in a couple hours. GeraldWL 03:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. GeraldWL 03:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 03:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* "as a basically Earth-like"-- basically my question is why basically
    • Changed to "essentially". I don't want to over-emphasize the similarities to Earth, hence the qualifier. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the occasional more exotic"-- shouldn't there be comma after occasional?
  • "on life on Earth"-- nitpicky, but the repetitive on isn't really nice when read aloud
  • "and light and"-- comma after light?
  • "in disaster stories. The theme of averting disaster by reigniting the Sun appears occasionally."-- "in disaster stories, in addition to averting disaster by reigniting the Sun."
    • Tweaked. I want to make it clear that reigniting the Sun appears much less frequently than dimming and extinction. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "propulsion by spacecraft"
  • "The Sun is"-- "It is"; prev sentence already began with The Sun
  • "comparison to Mars and Venus in fiction"-- you can remove the in fiction here, since it's already established we're talking about science fiction, and it gets repetitive.
  • I don't understand what Bleiler serves in the lead, he only repeats what you have encapsulated in the prior sentence-- taken for granted, rarely tapped / uncommon as a point of focus-- I would just combine sentence one with the previous (to not make an awkward one-sentence paragraph), then add "Overall" or Nevertheless in the beginning.
    • I think it's a good quote, and it says something about why the Sun has not appeared much in fiction. I tried joining the sentences with a semicolon, adding an "overall" to the beginning, and putting it at the end of the preceding paragraph. I don't know if it's an improvement—take a look and see what you think. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That looks fine to me as well, but right now I think "science fiction bibliographer"'s linking doesn't really feel necessary, and the "in the 2005 reference work The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy" part is extraneous, like it's overstretching the sentence; I understand that it feels right since the book has its own article, but you can say the same thing with the other sources, and readers would just wanna get straight to the point after reading the guy's name. GeraldWL 04:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding emdash or endash before "Richard"
    • Going by Template:Quote box/doc, it doesn't look like we're supposed to do that? I'll admit that I was kind of surprised to find that when I first started using quote boxes. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The doc template doesn't state any instructions, and the exemplary quotebox there is just to show editors how the template should appear like when they use 'em. GeraldWL 04:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what the Wikidata links do in improving the article; I've done these in references, but I'm not sure as to prose. But I don't find it that big of a problem. Others might point it out though.
    • Mainly a WP:BUILDTHEWEB measure. This was also brought up in the Venus in fiction FAC; as then, I would say blue link > interlanguage link > Wikidata link > red link > plain text. I have kept the Wikidata links, at least for now.TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last paragraph, first sentence makes too much short story-s. Suggest changing to "as in short stories like Jack Williamson's 1935 "Islands of the Sun", Raymond Z. Gallun's 1935 "Nova Solis", and Henry J. Kostkos' 1936 "We of the Sun"." Oh and also the apostrophe in "Kostkos"
  • I don't think the stock image of the fire adds any substance to the article
    • I rather like it, myself. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Normally one would put images if the elements of the image itself provide significant elevation of understanding to the article. At first impression, your caption that "it was expected to burn out in the relatively near future" contradicts the still photo of an ever-burning fire, and doesn't show any "burn out". Plus, such statements aren't really something that require audiovisual material to understand, unless you found artistic depictions of such tropes. GeraldWL 04:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's meant to illustrate combustion, which I think it does neatly. TompaDompa (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is definitely a good pict, but the question is, does combustion really need an explanatory image here, and why? It's a way more basic concept compared to the other stuff in this article like, let's say, nuclear fusion. Since paragraph one concerns the death of the Sun more, I think images from categories like white dwarfs would have more meaning. Since that topic is explored more in-depth in the paragraph, an image of it would hold more significance, on par with the images you put on Exploding and Other. GeraldWL 03:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe, but those images get kind of esoteric and I suspect many readers would not know what they are looking at or why—the image would likely require a fair bit of explanation, negating much of the point. For that matter, the death of the Sun in these stories is mostly science-fiction mumbo-jumbo rather than extrapolation from real science. TompaDompa (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm still not convinced, though, that the fire image adds any significant knowledge the prose fails to deliver. If the question is "How could a Sun possibly die from combustion", a more relevant variant of this would be artistic renderings of a Sun powered by combustion, but I can't find such on Commons, at least with a quick skim. GeraldWL 05:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • Adds information the prose doesn't? No–if it did, I think we would be having the opposite conversation, i.e. "why is this not mentioned in the text?". But the image illustrates a concept that is discussed in the text, namely combustion. I'm not opposed to replacing the image with a better one (whatever that may be), but I do think it's better than nothing and I don't see an obvious replacement that would be an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Flammarion's 1894 novel Omega: The Last Days of the World"-- comma
    • Don't know that it's necessary, but added. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found some duplicate links: Edmond Hamilton in Dimming para 2, and John W Campbell and David Brin in Close Encounters.
    • Unlinked Hamilton and Brin. Kept Campbell as the two instances are widely spaced within the body. WP:DUPLINK was amended a few months ago to be more permissive of duplicate links (which I supported, for the record), and I think this is reasonable in light of that. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the dying earth subgenre"-- it's capitalized in the article
  • "1954 short story "Phoenix" (written c. 1935)"-- why is written year important when other stories don't have their writing years mentioned?
  • "Hugh Kingsmill's 1924 short story "The End of the World""-- "Hugh Kingsmill's similarly-titled 1924 short story"
    • I think it's better to present (and link) the title explicitly. I can add "also entitled" (or similar) if you want. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some sentences with four-five references placed at a row. For the ones with fives refs I recommend bundling per WP:REFBUNDLE
    • I'd rather not. As I said above, I think it just makes it worse when there are some key sources that are used heavily in various combinations, as is the case here. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure this is just me being unfamiliar with such articles, but as I get to the "Exploding" part the article's format slowly becomes dreary. "In XX's 1999 novel "XXX", the Sun is XXXX. In XXXXX's 2000 short story "XII", the Sun is XXIIV." I enjoyed the Exploding's second sentence where you try to weave multiple sources to provide a more engaging comparison.
    • As I said at Talk:Saturn in fiction/GA1: "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." I do try to find interesting ways to group and present the examples, but I have to make sure not to stray into giving my analysis when doing so. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Night sky" is overlink
    • I disagree, but if others agree I'll remove the link. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see what kind of reader won't understand, as the two words are the definition itself. Sky as seen at night. It seems as redundant as wikilinking 2020. GeraldWL 04:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since each subsections only have one paragraph, I suggest removing the headings, since without them the article would flow more naturally. Furthermore you can also start the section with a paragraph that's like "There are various properties and phenomena associated with the Sun in fiction", but I know you can do better than me here
    • I don't think removing the headings is a good idea. These are vastly disparate aspects after all (and it would mess up the use of the Template:See also and Template:Further templates). Likewise, I don't know if an introductory sentence/paragraph makes a whole lot of sense or adds much; the different properties and phenomena are grouped like this mostly out of convenience so the article doesn't have an excessive number of top-level sections with brief contents. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Biblical" --> "biblical" , unitalicize Book of Joshua as Bible books aren't italicized
    • Done. I tried without success to find something in the MoS since I have variously seen "Biblical" and "biblical". Maybe it should be added. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(later included in the 1950 fix-up novel I, Robot)"-- extraneous in my opinion, and overstretches the sentence.
    • I'm going to disagree there. I, Robot, like The Martian Chronicles, is much more well-known than the individual short stories included and I think it would be a disservice to the reader not to link it. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trope duplicate link
    • Linking it both in the WP:LEAD and the body seems perfectly reasonable to me. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • My bad-- I thought it was in the body. GeraldWL 04:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginalized groups overlink
    • Again I disagree, but if others agree I'll remove the link. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ditto with night sky cmt. GeraldWL 04:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at close range at great personal cost"-- repetitive add
  • "1904 short"-- film
  • Why is Impossible Voyage only mentioned in the caption?
    • I wanted an image illustrating a sentient Sun, and this is the one I found. I might've equally used an image of the Sun Baby from Teletubbies if we had one with appropriate licensing. The work itself is not really discussed by sources on the overarching topic of Sun in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great job on the clickable images! Although just want to note, it's not really usable on mobile
    • Why thank you, I spent a fair amount of time on that back when I first added it to Mars in fiction back in February. It works just fine for me on mobile, but maybe that depends on the device and browser/app used. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe-- I was specifically using the Android app, but to be fair, that app is still a long way from perfect. GeraldWL 04:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the last three further readings only have one source each, why not just combi them under the name "Properties and phenomenas"?
    • Each of them has a fairly narrow and specific focus, so this seemed like a better approach to me. TompaDompa (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure about that, "Properties and phenomenas" are their umbrella term in the body, so it'd be reasonable to make it the same here too. Plus they're just one citation each. But I don't take this as a big issue. GeraldWL 04:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • None of the sources are on "Properties and phenomena" more broadly, though. They are all about specific subtopics. "Sun exploding" is also not from the "Properties and phenomena" section but the "Disaster" section. TompaDompa (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Is "A Pail of Air" really relevant to the subject matter of the article? There's nothing wrong with the Sun in that story, the issue is what's become of the Earth.
The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy finds it relevant ("A dying Sun is a cooler one, and decreased sunlight causes glaciation and other environmental changes in numerous pulp stories, including Nat Schachner's "When the Sun Dies" (1935) and Fritz Leiber's "A Pail of Air" (1951), a superior description of life in a sunless world."). TompaDompa (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Fourth Profession" Your description is wrong. In TFP, aliens will blow up the Sun to power the light sail on their starship if humanity doesn't build them a launching laser to do the same thing.
Hm. Changed it to say they plan to blow up the Sun. TompaDompa (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Inconstant Moon" The characters wake up the next morning, so it definitely was a solar flare.
I think I'll leave the description as it is, i.e. ambiguous. The in-story uncertainty is more relevant to this article than the eventual resolution, I find. TompaDompa (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I was passing: "they later realize that a large solar flare would produce the same effect". No they don't. They note that the observed effects are not, in fact, compatible with a nova and so the event must have been a solar flare; mmeaning that all hope etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that correct? I haven't read the story itself, but that's not how it's described in either our article "Inconstant Moon" or the story's entry in Don D'Ammassa's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction—they both describe a period of uncertainty. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Gog has it right. I just looked t over. The male character realizes from the fact that the shock wave is merely "a rising wind" rather than "a single vast thunderclap" of "scalding superheated steam" that it can't be a nova. He goes through a number of things that would have happened if it was a nova, such as a tremendous aurora and a devastating shock wave. That, along with the fact that G-0 stars don't go nova, convinces him it is only a flare. The story ends the next morning with the sun having risen. Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Tweaked the sentence to clarify that the brightening of the Moon is what would be seen with either a nova or a flare. TompaDompa (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A proto-variation on the concept appears in Robert A. Heinlein's 1939 short story "Misfit".[54] " I don't see where. I just glanced it over again and I don't see the sun being used for propulsion.
Says The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, "A somewhat different light-pressure drive, using magic Technology to render the spacecraft briefly inertialess so that it instantly acquires (almost) the speed of light, appears in Robert A Heinlein's "Misfit""
I think you'll find it's in Methuselah's Children. Possibly the confusion is that Andrew Jackson Libby, who invents the drive, appears in both works. But from Methuselah's Children, Part I, Chapter 7:
“Lazarus poked at it tentatively. “What is it?” he asked. “Your model?”
“No, no. That’s it. That’s the space drive.”
Lazarus looked at the younger man not unsympathetically. “Son,” he asked slowly, “have you come unzipped?”
“No, no, no!” Libby sputtered. “I’m as sane as you are. This is a radically new notion. That’s why I want you to take us down near the Sun. If it works at all, it will work best where light pressure is strongest.”
I can bore you with quotations from "Misfit" to show that all they are doing is reaction drives if you like. Or check our plot description for Methuselah's Children.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you. I have tweaked it so the specific story is not mentioned. TompaDompa (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SilverTiger[edit]

At first glance, this looks like a pretty well-written article, so I don't expect to have many comments.

  • The first section has an awful lot of redlinks though- are you certain all those books are notable enough to eventually get articles of their own?
    • I'm not certain about all of them (though I am for some), but I am reasonably confident about most of them. They are mentioned by the sources, after all. TompaDompa (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I don't expect you to change anything, you may want to take a moment to consider whether all of those books, stories, and authors are notable. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh. I was expecting a paragraph at the end of the first section discussing more about how new discoveries ended depictions of an inhabited Sun, forming a sort of chronological bridge into the next section.
    • I tweaked the first sentence of that section's last paragraph to emphasize the disappearance of "regular" forms of life in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using understandingknowledge of the underlying astronomy to be able to predict eclipses mathematically is a common trope—saysaccording to Stableford, it "became a key method by which European explorers could impress superstitious native populations in adventure stories".
    • I can't say I think it makes much of a difference, but I changed it. By the way, use of Template:tq is supposed to be avoided on FAC pages for technical reasons (but e.g. Template:Green is okay)—see Template:FAC-instructions. TompaDompa (talk)
      • Well crud, I've been using it quite frequently on reviews. As for the wording changes, well, I remember reading one or two stories featuring that trope and while I would say the characters knew about eclipses, I certainly wouldn't say they understood the science. Which, to me, is a subtle but important distinction. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fair. The key point is that they know that eclipses can be predicted ahead of time, after all. TompaDompa (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you center the image at the bottom, the one that links to the other planets in fiction articles?
    • I tried it. I think that made it way worse, so I changed it back again. TompaDompa (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this better? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's better than what I got when I tried centering it, but I prefer having it on the right as with all the other images. TompaDompa (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • IMO it created too much whitespace in the middle when it was placed on the right. And I initially passed over it as a regular image because it was placed like a regular image. Having it in the center alleviates the whitespace issue and immediately draws attention to it as something different that the normal, illustrative pictures. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alright. Doesn't make a huge difference to me. TompaDompa (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is long on listing specific examples and short on discussion of the trends over time and popularity/etc of those trends, but as the Sun is oft-overlooked in fiction, I assume this is an issue with the sources (and lack thereof)?
    • Yes. As I said above: "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." TompaDompa (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I, and I believe all regular editors, feel your pain of lacking sources. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, an interesting article and one I enjoyed reading. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With my comments answered, Support. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Looking at formatting/reliability since no spotcheck is needed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unrelated, but add Template:Use British English or otherwise appropriate
  • The use of locations is inconsistent; for example, ref 5 has just the pub, but ref 9 has just the location, and ref 24 has both
  • The use of quotes is also inconsistent, and sometimes unnecessary; take ref 14, where a quote is present but the viewer can go to the linked Google Books page to see it (also, regarding ref 14, quotes in quotes use apostrophes per MOS:QINQ; ditto 15 and 16, but also any I may have missed)
    • They're used where I deemed them useful, which is a handful of instances. Google Books sometimes removes previews from books that were previously accessible to preview, so I don't think that's a good reason to remove the quotes. Turned the double quotation marks to single ones. TompaDompa (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the link for ref 33 directs to a subsection of the page, the title of the citation should be formatted something like "Sun: In popular culture"
    • Can't say I see why that's necessary (the link doing that is just for the convenience of the reader so they don't have to scroll down to the relevant section of the source), but added. TompaDompa (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 35 missing pub
  • Add "none" to the ref= parameters of cite templates under "Further reading"
  • Some things under further reading, like the Vox article, are already used as citations; is this standard?
    • Yes, when "the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list" per MOS:FURTHER. I'd say we're at that point here. TompaDompa (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, all done, great work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass - thanks for the prompt responses. If you get any extra time, would appreciate any comments at this FAC- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

  • Maybe change "Once more" --> "As more" for clarity.
  • Sea of blue issue w/ "science fiction bibliographer Richard Bleiler".
    • I could rephrase it to "Richard Bleiler, a science fiction bibliographer", but I think that would make it quite a bit more clunky. I could also remove one link or the other, but I think the reader is better served by having both links even if they are adjacent to each other. TompaDompa (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe rephrase "by the notion that the Sun was fuelled by nuclear fusion" to "by the understanding"?
  • Is it really accurate to describe Haldane's "The Last Judgment" as a "story"? Maybe reword to a "work" or something of that sort. You also reuse "stories" shortly thereafter, so it's a bit repetitive.
  • There are several sentences supported by four or five references. Are they all really needed?
    • You might be surprised. I fairly often end up with situations like this due to the way I write articles, where different parts of a sentence (occasionally just a single word) rely on different sources. Another reason is that I tend to cite all of the highest-quality sources (of which there are four here: The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, and Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia) that are relevant to a particular aspect to keep track of which sources can be used to expand upon certain points when writing the article (so there are probably places where I could make do with fewer sources than are currently cited—but I would need to check each individual instance so I don't accidentally remove a source that is crucial as a result of my citing habits described in the previous sentence). And of course there's the sentence "Several sources attribute the popularity [...]", where I think it's important to actually cite several sources. TompaDompa (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe link mafia?
    • Sure. I was a bit indecisive about whether or not to do so myself. TompaDompa (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Other" section, might it be worth mentioning Clarke's 2010?
    • I'm guessing you're referring to the creation of a second Sun in the story? I would have mentioned it if the sources on the topic did, but they don't. It is covered by sources on Jupiter in fiction, however, so it is mentioned in that article. TompaDompa (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might link Supernova in its first mention.
  • I very much like the way you did the "See also" section.

Nice work. ~ HAL333 21:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to support. ~ HAL333 22:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • References: Does Caryad have a first name?
    • As far as I can tell, no. Appears to be mononymous. TompaDompa (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So they are.
  • Further reading: Are all of these in fact further reading? Some seem to have already been mentioned in References. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per MOS:FURTHER, repeating sources from the "References" section in the "Further reading" section is appropriate when "the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list". I'd say we're at that point here. TompaDompa (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum. Your call I guess. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 19 September 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/Sun_in_fiction/archive1&oldid=1176175531"