This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Comets in fiction article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to
Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
I looked on this page expecting to find an entry for one of my more favored movies, Deep Impact. I was surprised to find it was not here. Aren't most popular movies works of fiction? I can't believe I'm the first to think of it. People aren't that stupid. Well, maybe that deserves some qualification. Setting that aside, why isn't Deep Impact discussed on this page? --
Srwalden (
talk)
04:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The article isn't intended to be an exhaustive list of all fictional works where comets play an important role. With that said, I've added a mention of Deep Impact.
TompaDompa (
talk)
10:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Wait, there's no mention of
Sozin's Comet from Avatar: The Last Airbender? I understand that this cannot be an exhaustive list, and that everything depends on available sources. Just wanted to say I am surprised, because it is a special example, from fantasy rather than sci-fi, and a very important element to a rather important show.
Daranios (
talk)
15:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Few to no egregious errors, though the copy is lengthy at times and difficult to parse. I think this needs substantial copy editing. For example:
In the 1900s, a successive shift occurred wherein comets were largely replaced by other objects such as asteroids in threatening harm to Earth, though cometary impact events continued to appear in works like Jack Bechdolt's 1920 novel The Torch, where it forms part of the backstory for the post-apocalyptic setting.
This sentence is both quite long and becomes vague. What does the "it" in "it forms part of..." refer to? The antecedent is unclear. If "it" refers to "cometary impact events," then that is a subject-verb disagreement and should be corrected.
In general, the sheer number of examples also makes this difficult to work through. As an example, the "Resources" section has no real thesis or topic sentence. It's just a list of examples with no context for why these are meaningful.
This article seems to be largely the work of one editor who has done an admirable job compiling examples and references. Perhaps that editor can take a copy editing pass to provide some focus and context, or another editor can jump in to do so.
For some specific cleanup categories that I think apply, see:
I didn't see any spurious or inaccurate citations. However, as most of the citations were just plot examples, I would expect them to be accurate.
In addition, this article overwhelmingly leans on three tertiary sources that are other encylopedias (Westfahl, Langford, and Stableford). Please remember that wikipedia should be based on secondary sources, per this page:
I think this article, in very broad strokes, includes thorough coverage of the topic (ie, there are sections for the different ways in which comets are significant in fiction). However, there is no meaningful context for those sections. A list of examples is not itself "coverage."
4. Neutral point of view?: N/A
Technically I'd call this a "pass," but I don't think this article contains enough specific claims to say one way or the other. It is almost exclusively plot examples, which, sure, are "neutral" but I don't think it's meaningful to describe an article as neutral if it lacks information relating to the history and culture of these works and WHY they are important.
5. Stable?: Pass.
Edit history looks solid, and if anything this appears to a project of one editor for the most part.
6. Images?: Pass.
This article could certainly be dolled up with more images, but there is a flavorful header illustration and nothing in the article that suffers from lack of illustration.
Closing comments: There's nothing wrong with red links per se, but this article has a lot of them. It causes me to doubt the importance of the subject considering many of the examples do not themselves have their own pages. I believe the examples could be trimmed down, focusing on the most significant examples.
In addition, I think this article is extremely over-referenced (to its detriment). The vast majority of the copy is simple plot summaries or examples (rather than explaining, for instance, the broader significance of these works), often with multiple references. Plot summaries are rarely controversial, requiring multiple references.
I would suggest reviewing other pages of "[topic] in fiction" for examples of how to provide context. For example,
Venus in fiction has a section titled "Paradigm shift," which provides a historical context before providing examples of fiction that reflect that context.
Finally, I would suggest revising how much this article leans on the first 3 references (Westfahl, Langford, and Stableford). Much of this article is heavily borrowed from those encyclopedias. Wikipedia should rely on secondary sources, not repeat tertiary sources (such as other encyclopedias).
@
Geethree: I'm guessing you meant to close the review. The way to do that is to put the {{FailedGA}} template on the talk page, not the review page. See
WP:GAI. I have fixed it.
[1][2]
Anyway, some responses to your comments:
The topic sentence for the "Resources" section is Several stories depict the
extraction of resources, mainly water, from comets.
On the topic of having a large number of examples and relatively little context, I'll reiterate what 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. The examples have all been selected from the works mentioned by the literature on the overarching topic, and a large number of additional works mentioned by the relevant literature have been omitted for brevity.
Basing articles primarily on tertiary sources is not necessarily a problem, but more importantly for this page: these science fiction encyclopedias typically function as secondary rather than tertiary sources as they rely primarily on the works themselves, not secondary literature (as
Andrew Davidson said at
Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources back in 2021: Encyclopedias of this sort are usually secondary sources, not tertiary ones, as their entries and thematic articles are based on the original works rather than some body of secondary scholarship.).
I am very familiar with other "[topic] in fiction" articles, having written many of them myself including
Mars in fiction and
Sun in fiction. The example you give,
Venus in fiction, was written by me and
Piotrus. The reason that article (and specific section) gives a lot of historical context is that the sources on that topic do, and the reason this article does not is that the sources on this topic do not. The sources here give some historical context, but unfortunately not much.
On the citation habits: Sources are necessary not only for
WP:Verification, but also for establishing what's an important
WP:ASPECT (and what's not). Articles are supposed to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, and the only way to demonstrate that is to cite sources on the overarching subject (i.e.
Comets in fiction). Other sources are used to supplement these when needed to verify e.g. specific plot details (the primary works could perhaps be cited for these details, but I think this approach is preferable).
Passing comment. I am surprised this was GA-failed without waiting for the nominator to respond. And it is ironic that the reviewer tells the author to review as best practices... articles written by said author. I could say more, but let's keep
WP:AGF in mind. I think this is pretty close to meeting GA criteria. I doubt TompaDompa missed much in sources - if something is not here, it probably isn't significantly covered. PS. I also wouldn't worry to much about red links, per
WP:RED. A few works might be overlinked, but it's hard to say; I trust the author to have an idea what is notable and not, given their record. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here12:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Hm. I did recently watch Comet in Moominland in the cinema, but none of the sources on the topic I have consulted make any mention of it (or the other ones you mention). The SFE entry for the 1989 Venus Wars film links to the "comets" entry, and it fits in nicely with the Double Planet example, so I added that one at any rate.
TompaDompa (
talk)
02:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
TompaDompa How about Your Name? Some sources to consider:
[3],
[4]. There are some others (GScholar shows some thesis and such).
I did find an additional source specifically on how comets have been portrayed in fiction/popular culture, and it mentions the Comet in Moominland novel though not the film–I added it to the article. Not much luck when it comes to globalization beyond that, unfortunately.
TompaDompa (
talk)
21:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
TompaDompa: Ah, good, I had missed that in searching for the nuclear aspect. Which is a new one, so maybe it's worth mentioning if we now have two sources for that, but I am sure you have the best overview what's warranted and what's not here.
Daranios (
talk)
19:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I've tried to find either an authoritative source saying that the comet in Comet in Moominlandis an allegory (or metaphor, or similar phrasing) for nuclear weapons or a reliable source that explicitly says that it has widely been interpreted that way, thus far without success. I'll keep looking. This interpretation almost certainly warrants mentioning at the Comet in Moominland article, at any rate.
TompaDompa (
talk)
22:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hm. It appears that the nuclear interpretation is not entirely uncontroversial or universally accepted. See e.g.
https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/23abc4f4-361d-47f0-a129-c7639bd50c18/content and
https://marsmombestmom.wordpress.com/comet-in-moominland/ – the latter of which (although clearly not a reliable source) says Comet in Moominland has clear contemporary connections to the second world war, in particular bomb raidings and the civilian perspective (Karjalainen, 2013, p. 142). A striking parallel could be drawn between the omni-present comet and looming threat of the newly invented atom bomb, but is rather a non-intended coincidence as the writing had already been finished by the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (Westin, 2007, p. 195). So I think that settles it: the nuclear interpretation of Comet in Moominland should not be mentioned at this article.
TompaDompa (
talk)
22:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I will try to get around to working on this topic one day. But in the meantime, what about adding the Korean and Japanese examples? I provided RS and context above that should allow us to do so. Oh, and I randomly stumbole upon this:
[7] about a comet-related work by Chinese writer
Xu Xu. Perhaps also something from
[8] will be of use (search for the word book). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here01:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think the sourcing we have is sufficient to justify adding either Heaven's Soldiers or Your Name. The Japanese example we currently have—Venus Wars—is already a borderline case where we have a high-quality source (The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction), but not one focused on the overarching topic (it's not mentioned in
the "Comets" entry). At least in that case it fits as an example of themes brought up by the sources on the overarching topic, but were it not for globalization concerns I don't see how its inclusion could be justified.It would be great if we could find a source on comets being associated in fiction with what might perhaps be called anomalies in space and time, because there are other examples than the
body swap/
time travel ones in Your Name and Heaven's Soldiers such as Coherence (where it's
parallel universes). I would love to add that as a theme, but absent sources on that aspect it would be my personal
WP:ANALYSIS.
TompaDompa (
talk)
16:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Personally I would say that, yes, both Sozin's Comet and Shadow of the Comet could fall under supernatural occurences tied to the appearance of a comet. More concretely,
this magazine reveals as details: "Three days and three nights is all you have to free the world from the curse which hangs over it, for when the Comet passes again, Cthulhu and the Great Ancients will return." Alas, this seems to be an advertisment, i.e. primary source.
Daranios (
talk)
19:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Shadow of the Comet is another game where a comet is both in the name and a story element, though it might be hard to find secondary sources dicussing the comet's role extensively as most reviews avoid spoiling too much. @
Piotrus: Ahm, what specifically would you like me to search for in German: Comments on those Shadowrun modules, comments on comets in RPGs or, ...?
Daranios (
talk)
16:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Daranios I was thinking Shadowrun stuff, since AFAIK SR is very big in Germany. (I am also very surprised we have no stand-alone articles on most of
SR books - I wonder if de wiki has more than we do... although a quick glance at
de:Liste der Shadowrun-Romane) suggests this is not the case. In either case, I would think if reliable reviews or coverage exist outside English, German would be my first bet (for SR stuff). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here12:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Piotrus: Indeed Shadowrun is a big thing in Germany, although I personally only had little interaction with it. I am also not the best in finding game magazine articles. What I could find is the following:
Online magazine review of the German version of Year of the Comet, brief discussion of the comet
I forgot, AD&D also had an adventure named Tale of the Comet, with
Casus Belli #109, p. 18 featuring a review; not much about the comet itself, brings sci-fi into the game's fantasy (and it seems was even
novelized)
1) My eyes hurt. Red and blue everywhere. I don't know what to focus on. I find the prose very hard to read because of this. That said,
Venus in fiction and
Sun in fiction, if I recall correctly, were
TFAs in the past, and they look the exact same. And, at the very least, either the people are notable enough to already their own article, or the fiction they wrote is notable enough to already have its own article. I'm not going to do the work of figuring out whether or not each and every individual red-linked book is worthy of a mention outside of their author's bio, but I would imagine that not all of them deserve a standalone article. For the purposes of this GA review, I'm just going to ignore that fact.
2) Are there any more images? The image currently present in the article is great, and another one would be even better. The addition of an image of a real comet (
Halley's comet, for example) would add a lot.
3) The sourcing is good. I don't have anything negative to say about the prose. It's well-written.
Normally I have a lot to say. You have clearly put a lot of work into this article and topic. I hope to one day see the featured topic Solar system in fiction or something similar, which would require a
Planet Nine in fiction article at the very least.
Y I did briefly scan all of the sources. None of them are flagged by the sourcing bot I have installed. No plagiarism or copyvio issues. All of the text is verified by the sources as far as I'm aware.
Cessaune[talk]12:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Great! I ask because it occasionally comes to light that reviewers have not spot-checked the sources, and in some cases the reviews have been declared invalid (and the articles put back in the list of unreviewed nominations). Noting in the review that a spot-check has been done (or demonstrating that sources have been checked by commenting on specific issues that have come to light by doing so) can avoid a fair amount of headache for everyone involved by removing any doubt.
TompaDompa (
talk)
13:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't want to throw a wrench into the review, as I think the article is overall at GA level, but I believe I've identified some missing aspects and relevant sources (see discussions sections on the talk page above), and it would be good to address them before the review closes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here01:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll reply to the specific points in their respective talk page sections. In short, I think it is fair to say, based on the sources on the overarching topic, that the main aspects are covered at present. I nevertheless intend to expand the article somewhat in the coming few days using some additional sources I've located.
TompaDompa (
talk)
18:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Did you know nomination
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a potentially great hook. I think "living entity" is slightly unclear, and I had to double check to make sure it meant what I thought it did. The article says it more clearly: "Comets themselves are alive in some works". Is there another way to write the hook, to be more clear?
Shooterwalker (
talk)
14:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The caption doesn't sound right. Of course, we could try saying something like: "Click on a planet to learn more about its depiction in fiction", but that would break
MOS:YOU. What should we do?
TWOrantulaTM (
enter the web)
03:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
If I recall correctly, it used to have a short intro for each section, stating a general rule, followed by examples. Now each section is a singla mass of examples, which is much harder to read. It should also include Mark Twain, who believed, or pretended to believe, that he came and left on Halley's comet. His satirical story "Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven" has the titular character riding a comet. But most of all the article needs better readability.
Wastrel Way (
talk)
14:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Ericreply
You know what, I've added both the story and the Halley thing. The latter is a bit borderline, but it is actually something that (some) sources on comets in fiction deem relevant to include for context. And it's kind of thematically related. If somebody else thinks it falls on the wrong side of including loosely relevant information, however, I wouldn't object to its removal.
TompaDompa (
talk)
14:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply