# Talk:Imagining Mars: A Literary History

@TompaDompa: I feel like John Gilbey's review is given too much space. You gave it more room than the other two reviewers combined. I believe that review should be trimmed a bit. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: I would on the contrary say that Gilbey's review is given a reasonable amount of space, and that the coverage of the other reviews should be expanded. There's a reason that there are several additional reviews listed in the "Further reading" section—I'm planning to expand the article with those sources, but haven't yet. TompaDompa (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's your area of expertise, so I imagine you would know what would be best. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey, do you plan on getting a GA and/or DYK with this one? Just asking. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I am. TompaDompa (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Imagining Mars: A Literary History/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 09:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to take up this review; I should be able to get some comments through in a few days.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  09:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Passing  Frzzl  talk; contribs  10:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


### Review
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Contents list is well done, article follows MOS well. One thing to ask - is every redlink here warranted? There sure are a lot... If (this article is excellently written) I have any points to raise on prose, they'll be listed below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Refs are formatted just fine, earwig comes up with 31%, pretty much just quotations from reviews. No evidence of OR found
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Article is focused, everything looks fine here.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
From my reading, the coverage/balance of reviews is fair; looks NPOV to me.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
no signs of an edit war, looks fine
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Only image is fair use, no probs
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


#### Spotchecks
Sources I've checked - 1, 2 (got hold of it through my own library), 9, 10, 13.
Y happy that this article is well sourced.


#### Points
@TompaDompa:

can we change "a couple of reviewers", to "However, some reviewers" or something similar. The original is a bit informal.
Done. TompaDompa (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
does smorgasbord in Morissey's review need to be in quotations?
I don't know if it's necessary, but I've added quotation marks. TompaDompa (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
That's it - this is the best written GAN I've ever seen :D