Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to WP:Featured article status. I previously overhauled the article completely and brought it to WP:Good article status. I was curious as to what it would take to get it up to FA quality, so I looked for similar articles that had reached featured status, but I couldn't find any (though maybe I was just looking in the wrong place?). I thought it might be worth giving it a shot, if nothing else because it would be nice to have something to point to and say "this is how we want our "X in fiction" articles to be written". I asked the editors at WT:FAC what they about it, and they advised me to start a peer review.
Any and all feedback would be appreciated, be it about copyediting, content, structure, or something else.
Pinging some editors who have offered to help in one way or another to let them know this peer review has been started: The Rambling Man, Mike Christie, and Grapple X.
Thanks, TompaDompa ( talk) 23:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
— The Most Comfortable Chair 15:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
At 2909 words there is plenty of room for expansion. If I saw this article at FAC, I would be skeptical that comprehensiveness is met (although literature is really not my ballgame so take this with a grain of salt.) My comments about non-representation of non-Western fiction still apply. Is this just not a thing in African, East Asian etc. literature? If so, is there any source that says so explicitly? ( t · c) buidhe 12:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
freedom from deathisn't the most encyclopedic definition anyway.
strong as it may bestrikes me as a little unencyclopedic in tone.
proposed negative effects— "proposed" isn't quite the right word; you mean something more like "depicted" although that's not a great word here either; "negative effects" is a bit wordy, maybe "drawbacks"?
This view was challenged by a large number of authors in the 20th century— give examples, and maybe rephrase as
This view was challenged in the 20th century by writers such as...
The number of immortals present in each story varies from a single person to everyone— seems trivial; I'd remove it.
immortality itself is commonly obtained either from supernatural entities or objects or through biological or technological means.— enliven with examples, e.g. the Holy Grail.
Several Greek myths of antiquity— examples? Immortality#Ancient_Greek_religion has a few.
Chinese fiction literaturea technical term? "Fiction literature" seems redundant.
which both remain unfinished— unclear why this matters.
but more positive attitudes successively emerged— I would rewrite as
but more positive depictions also emerged; there's probably a better word than 'emerged'.
By the 1930s, opinions were divided into camps with respectively favourable and unfavourable views on immortality, a division that continued at least until the 1960s.— 'respectively' doesn't work here; without more details about who was in these camps and what they believed, this sentence amounts to "some people thought immortality was good and others thought it was bad", a statement which is true of all of human history and not just the 1930s.
a trend of more analytical and evenhanded treatments— 'evenhanded' isn't the right word; it implies 'impartial' but you mean 'neutral'.
outright contes philosophiques— 'outright' doesn't work here because it's not contrasting with anything.
Different kinds of immortality have been conceived— vague; better would be
Depictions of immortality differ in a number of ways, such as whether immortals are still susceptible to injuries, etc.
the common feature of which is significantly prolonged lifespans— isn't the common feature of immortality the absence of death, not significantly prolonged lifespans?
The most common form of immortality is that of an individual living a life with an extended duration— again, immortality implies infinite duration, not merely extended.
Absolute immortality is uncommon— this term is used nowhere else in the article and it's not clear exactly what it means.
modern medical and technological advancements— I suggest
modern medicine and technologyas more concise. Perhaps even better would be
advanced medicine and technology.
and/or— this construction is generally discouraged; see MOS:SLASH.
In Chinese author Wang Jinkang's 2005 short story "The Reincarnated Giant", immortality is attainable by replacing aged body parts one at a time.— given that both the story and the author are red links, not sure this is notable enough for inclusion.
A kind of non-physical immortality can also be achieved— the
can also be achievedmakes it sound like it's stating a scientific fact.
an inadvertent such deal— awkward
the captain's blasphemy— I'd say something like
the ghost ship Flying Dutchmanso it's clear that you are talking about the captain of a ship.
Several stories exist— examples?
A commonly occurring motif is that of— suggest
A common motif is.
These positive depictions— this sentence should be broken up into multiple sentences.
Rublov ( talk) 16:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@
Rublov: I've done most of these. Some comments:
TompaDompa ( talk) 00:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The large proportion of examples from the 20th century is a consequence of the sources largely focusing thereonand I have no doubt this is true, but many, if not most, of the sources cited are specifically about science fiction/fantasy, e.g.:
Few cents (without reading other reviews here):
@ Piotrus: I have addressed some of this, and will do some more expanding later (I'll have to review the sources again first). In the meantime: is there anything in particular you think is missing? I don't recall any sources discussing the connection between immortality and undeath itself in depth (though using vampires as examples of immortals is not all that uncommon), but I might be misremembering. Both fantasy and digital immortality should be possible to cover quite a bit more than they are at present, though I'm a bit wary of focusing too much on those aspects since the sources discuss science fiction much more than they do fantasy (just compare the lengths of the "Immortality" entries in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction vs. The Encyclopedia of Fantasy—the former is more than three times as long as the latter) and digital immortality is only one method where the bulk of the material should probably be at other articles such as Digital immortality and Mind uploading in fiction. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@ TompaDompa: This PR has been open since December, and the last comment was over a month ago. Are you still interested in receiving comments in this PR? If so, I suggest seeking out new reviewers who have written FA articles similar to this one, or posting on Wikiprojects asking for reviewers. If not, can you close this PR? Thanks. Z1720 ( talk) 23:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to WP:Featured article status. I previously overhauled the article completely and brought it to WP:Good article status. I was curious as to what it would take to get it up to FA quality, so I looked for similar articles that had reached featured status, but I couldn't find any (though maybe I was just looking in the wrong place?). I thought it might be worth giving it a shot, if nothing else because it would be nice to have something to point to and say "this is how we want our "X in fiction" articles to be written". I asked the editors at WT:FAC what they about it, and they advised me to start a peer review.
Any and all feedback would be appreciated, be it about copyediting, content, structure, or something else.
Pinging some editors who have offered to help in one way or another to let them know this peer review has been started: The Rambling Man, Mike Christie, and Grapple X.
Thanks, TompaDompa ( talk) 23:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
— The Most Comfortable Chair 15:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
At 2909 words there is plenty of room for expansion. If I saw this article at FAC, I would be skeptical that comprehensiveness is met (although literature is really not my ballgame so take this with a grain of salt.) My comments about non-representation of non-Western fiction still apply. Is this just not a thing in African, East Asian etc. literature? If so, is there any source that says so explicitly? ( t · c) buidhe 12:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
freedom from deathisn't the most encyclopedic definition anyway.
strong as it may bestrikes me as a little unencyclopedic in tone.
proposed negative effects— "proposed" isn't quite the right word; you mean something more like "depicted" although that's not a great word here either; "negative effects" is a bit wordy, maybe "drawbacks"?
This view was challenged by a large number of authors in the 20th century— give examples, and maybe rephrase as
This view was challenged in the 20th century by writers such as...
The number of immortals present in each story varies from a single person to everyone— seems trivial; I'd remove it.
immortality itself is commonly obtained either from supernatural entities or objects or through biological or technological means.— enliven with examples, e.g. the Holy Grail.
Several Greek myths of antiquity— examples? Immortality#Ancient_Greek_religion has a few.
Chinese fiction literaturea technical term? "Fiction literature" seems redundant.
which both remain unfinished— unclear why this matters.
but more positive attitudes successively emerged— I would rewrite as
but more positive depictions also emerged; there's probably a better word than 'emerged'.
By the 1930s, opinions were divided into camps with respectively favourable and unfavourable views on immortality, a division that continued at least until the 1960s.— 'respectively' doesn't work here; without more details about who was in these camps and what they believed, this sentence amounts to "some people thought immortality was good and others thought it was bad", a statement which is true of all of human history and not just the 1930s.
a trend of more analytical and evenhanded treatments— 'evenhanded' isn't the right word; it implies 'impartial' but you mean 'neutral'.
outright contes philosophiques— 'outright' doesn't work here because it's not contrasting with anything.
Different kinds of immortality have been conceived— vague; better would be
Depictions of immortality differ in a number of ways, such as whether immortals are still susceptible to injuries, etc.
the common feature of which is significantly prolonged lifespans— isn't the common feature of immortality the absence of death, not significantly prolonged lifespans?
The most common form of immortality is that of an individual living a life with an extended duration— again, immortality implies infinite duration, not merely extended.
Absolute immortality is uncommon— this term is used nowhere else in the article and it's not clear exactly what it means.
modern medical and technological advancements— I suggest
modern medicine and technologyas more concise. Perhaps even better would be
advanced medicine and technology.
and/or— this construction is generally discouraged; see MOS:SLASH.
In Chinese author Wang Jinkang's 2005 short story "The Reincarnated Giant", immortality is attainable by replacing aged body parts one at a time.— given that both the story and the author are red links, not sure this is notable enough for inclusion.
A kind of non-physical immortality can also be achieved— the
can also be achievedmakes it sound like it's stating a scientific fact.
an inadvertent such deal— awkward
the captain's blasphemy— I'd say something like
the ghost ship Flying Dutchmanso it's clear that you are talking about the captain of a ship.
Several stories exist— examples?
A commonly occurring motif is that of— suggest
A common motif is.
These positive depictions— this sentence should be broken up into multiple sentences.
Rublov ( talk) 16:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@
Rublov: I've done most of these. Some comments:
TompaDompa ( talk) 00:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The large proportion of examples from the 20th century is a consequence of the sources largely focusing thereonand I have no doubt this is true, but many, if not most, of the sources cited are specifically about science fiction/fantasy, e.g.:
Few cents (without reading other reviews here):
@ Piotrus: I have addressed some of this, and will do some more expanding later (I'll have to review the sources again first). In the meantime: is there anything in particular you think is missing? I don't recall any sources discussing the connection between immortality and undeath itself in depth (though using vampires as examples of immortals is not all that uncommon), but I might be misremembering. Both fantasy and digital immortality should be possible to cover quite a bit more than they are at present, though I'm a bit wary of focusing too much on those aspects since the sources discuss science fiction much more than they do fantasy (just compare the lengths of the "Immortality" entries in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction vs. The Encyclopedia of Fantasy—the former is more than three times as long as the latter) and digital immortality is only one method where the bulk of the material should probably be at other articles such as Digital immortality and Mind uploading in fiction. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@ TompaDompa: This PR has been open since December, and the last comment was over a month ago. Are you still interested in receiving comments in this PR? If so, I suggest seeking out new reviewers who have written FA articles similar to this one, or posting on Wikiprojects asking for reviewers. If not, can you close this PR? Thanks. Z1720 ( talk) 23:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)