This review is transcluded from Talk:Małe zielone ludziki/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 03:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 01:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The quality of my review is going to be somewhat limited by almost all sources on the book (as far as I can tell) being in Polish.
• The article is rather brief. I gather this reflects the level of coverage in reliable (and available) sources being relatively low?
• For transparency and future reference, I'll note the previous discussion we've had about the reliability of encyklopediafantastyki.pl at Template:Did you know nominations/Balonem do bieguna.

• The WP:LEAD is very barebones. It should be expanded with material from the "Reception" and "Analysis" sections (this might necessitate a sentence or so of plot summary for context). In particular, I think the South Africa thing should be included.
• The lead is also a single run-on sentence.
  • Tweaked it myself. TompaDompa (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think labelling this as Afrofuturism (or Africanfuturism) should be done without a source explicitly using that term. Apart from the lead, this applies to including this in those categories (the article is currently in Category:Afrofuturist novels).
  • @TompaDompa:. I agree OR is something to be wary of, but isn't this a case of WP:SKYISBLUE etc.? I mean, a major theme of this novel is Africa in science fiction, which, reading SFE [1]->[2] (no entry on Africa, see afrofuturism) seems to be be the same as afrofuturism (SFE: "for a literary and cultural treatment of the African diaspora in terms of, or incorporating tropes from, the genres of sf, Fantasy and Magic Realism"), with a not do " older literary works by George S Schuyler and others have been retroactively adopted into the genre". If you think this is too OPish, we could replace the term in the lead with Africa in science fiction (red link, but surely a notable topic?). Arguably, there is also Africanfuturism, and I am not sure either is as broad said "Africa in sf". But what about categories? Category:Africa in fiction, I guess, since there is no "fooregion in sf" cat tree? (Sigh, there probably should be...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do think it's too ORish. It's not clear to me that this fits the letter of the definition of either Afrofuturism or Africanfuturism. For Afrofuturism in particular, my understanding of the term is that it relates to the African diaspora—i.e. people of African descent outside of Africa—and this book doesn't seem to be about the diaspora? On the other hand, linking Africa in science fiction (an article that probably should exist) would be fine. TompaDompa (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Fair. I've done so while expanding the lead. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I might simply call this section "Publication history", which seems to be more standard.
• It was first published in 1985 by Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza [pl] (in two volumes) as part of the series Fantazja–Przygoda–Rozrywka [pl] (Fantasy–Adventure–Entertainment). – I gather this sentence was meant to cite Encyklopedia Fantastyki?
  • Yes. I think EF is reliable enough for this (could cite Polish library catalogues instead but I don't see much of a difference). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting that plot summaries do not need to cite secondary sources as the work itself functions as a WP:Primary source—but it's not prohibited either (and I frequently cite secondary sources for plot summaries per WP:PLOTREF myself).
• That being said, where the ruling white population is developing laser weapons and planning to conquer the world to cleanse it of colored races appears to come from https://esensja.pl/ksiazka/recenzje/tekst.html?id=23112, so that source should be cited here as well.
  •  Done
• conquer the world to cleanse it of colored races – "cleanse" does not seem to be the right word here, since the goal—if I understood it correctly—is enslavement rather than extermination.
  •  Done True, the source mentioned above talks about enslavement, I am not sure where did I see mention of genocide, could be my error (although because I've been working on a bunch of Holocaust articles recently). Rewrote to enslavement. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This section is overly reliant on verbatim quotes from the reviewers where summarizing and paraphrasing would be better. The sentence He criticized the "author's indecisiveness about what should be the main thread of the story", which results in "everything leading nowhere". is a case in point.
  •  Done Somehow this sounds better in Polish than English. Rewritten the first paragraph (left the quotations in second paragraph for now - I think it reads fine?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Jarosław Loretz critically reviewed the book – I don't think "critically" is the right word here. It could plausibly be interpreted as either meaning that it was a negative review or that it was an in-depth one, so the ambiguity should be resolved.
  •  Done False friend translation from Polish, perhaps. Word removed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It has also been described as a dystopia. – should the link be to dystopian fiction (which redirects to Utopian and dystopian fiction) rather than to dystopia?
• He criticized the protagonist, stating that she is overwhelmed by the plot. – is this actually criticizing the protagonist? That is, does the source say that the characterization suffers by an excessive focus on plot or that the in-universe character finds the events to be overwhelming (or something else entirely)?
  • The latter, I think (that she finds the events overwhelming). Quoting from the source, translated from Polish: [main character] is a cosmopolitan caught up in a global plot that is too big for her. She can only repeat/report on theories about the anomalies she hears from others. Clarifying the translation: plot here refers to the book plot (frankly, this sounds better in English than in original Polish). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should be clarified in the article. TompaDompa (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • @TompaDompa I am not sure how. Any ideas? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it's just about the character being in over her head, I would honestly probably just leave it out—it's a fairly common plot element for protagonists to find themselves in situations that are beyond their abilities to handle, after all. If the source ties this point to some other aspect of their analysis, however, I would try to clarify that connection. TompaDompa (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

          @TompaDompa I read it as a criticism of the protagonist as, to put it simply, not being very smart (see the " She can only repeat/report on theories about the anomalies she hears from others" part). Anyway, I've rewritten and expanded that para, after rereading the source several times. That said, the author (Leś) is not writing in a clear way, some of his analysis is ambiguous or cryptic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

          Alright, I suppose that's as good as it is going to get. TompaDompa (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• New comment: never reveal their strategy, act in a roundabout, indirect way, most often secretly controlling the course of events so that they appear spontaneous – that's a (translated) direct quote, right? If I understand the source correctly, it comes from the book itself. This should be made clear. TompaDompa (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TompaDompa I tried to paraphrase this a bit, but to make it simple, I've added quotation marks, since it is still pretty similar to the original, fair point. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See above. I would prefer South Africa to be mentioned in the WP:LEAD, but it is not strictly necessary.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no overt copyvio. Assessing WP:Close paraphrasing is a bit tricky when the article is in a different language than the sources, but there is an overuse of verbatim quotes that needs to be addressed. And now it has.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   It's brief but appears to cover the basics adequately.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No obvious neutrality issues.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The book cover is fair use.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Ping Piotrus. TompaDompa (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa Finally got back to this, thank you for waiting. Replies above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there. TompaDompa (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And we're done. Well done! TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]