# Talk:A Voyage to the Moon (Tucker novel)

To TompaDompa - I appreciate your interest in Tucker and this work of his, as he is my Third Great Grandfather. I will try to help with this as time allows, in my elder years. I urge you to finalize your user page. I have found it to be a benefit over the years, without any measurable inconvenience. Hoppyh (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

J. L. Hilton writes that the book "belongs to the satirical tradition of Cyrano de Bergerac's Voyage dans la Lune (1657), Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1726), and the tall tales of Baron von Münchausen (18th century), as well as to the genre of speculative scientific accounts of the moon, such as Kepler's Somnium (1615-1629), Godwin's The Man in the Moon (1638) and Wilkins' The Discovery of a World in the Moone (1640), and proto-science-fiction such as Ludwig Holberg's Nikolai Klimii iter subterraneum (1741)." Chiswick Chap suggested that this could be turned into a nice diagram. TompaDompa (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

From the GA review: I can see why someone might think it excessive, but I think a high number of citations is necessary for balance reasons—this being something of an exceptional claim that is also immediately contradicted afterwards. It's a fairly common belief that it is the first.
One solution here is to bundle the refs. I think that the three most authoritative sources would suffice here, but if five or even seven are needed, it's less distracting for the reader to put them within a single footnote. If the claim is so contentious, I would recommend adding quotes from the material to the bundled citation. For instance, see The Structure of Literature#cite_ref-aims_22-0.
On a separate note related to the review, I appreciate your sourcing of the Synopsis. Makes it much easier to verify as a reader. czar 13:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)