Talk:The War of the Worlds

This review is transcluded from Talk:The War of the Worlds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 23:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The article switches back and forth between Wells's and Wells'.
• There are some MOS:CURLY apostrophes.
• The structure of the article is rather unorthodox. This is detrimental to the "flow" of the article, makes it difficult or at least unintuitive to find information on specific aspects, and leads to some redundancy. I would suggest restructuring.
• There are a lot of references that should include a link to Google Books (or similar) for ease of verification.
• There is an overuse of images, in particular illustrations from the book. There are no fewer than four images depicting tripods attacking something or other, for instance. Per MOS:PERTINENCE, strive for variety and consider what each image adds to the article besides being decorative.

• The WP:LEAD does not do the greatest job of summarizing the body, but the body requires a lot of work (see below) and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so that's an issue that will need to be resolved at a later stage.
• Linking to Western canon is an WP:EASTEREGG.
• At the time of the book's publication, it was classified as a scientific romance – this is unsourced in the WP:LEAD and not mentioned in the body as all.
• It was memorably dramatised – "memorably" is a MOS:Word to watch.
• directed by and starring – "starring" is an odd choice of word here. I would perhaps say "directed and narrated by" or even just "by".
• listeners who did not know the book's events were fictional – "the book's" events? The listeners presumably didn't know that it was an adaptation of a book in the first place.
• notably Robert H. Goddard – "notably" is a MOS:Word to watch.
• The Goddard stuff is clearly out of WP:PROPORTION for the WP:LEAD.

• At over 1200 words, this is a rather lengthy plot summary. It needs copyediting for conciseness. This is both a question of individual sentences being poorly written and excessive levels of detail. I see that this was brought up on the talk page back in 2015, see Talk:The War of the Worlds/Archive 2#Plot detail and long sentences. Also brought up there is an overuse of quotes from the novel.
• disgorging Martians – I would suggest using a different word since "disgorge" is an uncommon word to the point of being somewhat conspicuous.
• Link Gorgon. The average reader is likely not to be familiar with the term.
• A human deputation – I would suggest using a different word, perhaps "delegation". The text should be accessible to most readers, and this is an unnecessarily uncommon word to use here.
• "a blinding glare of green light" and a loud concussion attend the arrival of the fifth Martian cylinder – "attend"? I might use a different word such as "accompany" or "signal", but this is an example of detail that seems like it could be left out altogether (as well as an example of overusing direct quotes from the novel). It could probably all be replaced by "the fifth Martian cylinder arrives".
• The reader is then led to believe – that sounds a lot like unsourced WP:ANALYSIS to me.
• Enroute should be two words ("En route"), but if it is deemed necessary to put it in italics per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC it should probably be replaced with plain English. I am however inclined to think that this is an instance that falls under MOS:FOREIGN's "Common usage in English" clause and thus should not have italics.
• finally attempting to end it all – seems like a MOS:EUPHEMISM to me.
• somewhat miraculously – seems like editorializing to me.

• It is considered one of the first works to theorise the existence of a race intelligent enough to invade Earth. – not in the cited source. I am also a bit confused as to why this is under the "style" heading.
• In fact, this entire paragraph fails verification.

• There is a fair amount of WP:OFFTOPIC material in this section.
• Clarify whether "he" refers to Wells or Huxley in the first paragraph.
• The first paragraph seems unnecessary. It's not actually about the novel, but about Wells.
• as though watching tiny organisms through a microscope – this is a comparison made by Wells, which should be made clearer. Removing the preceding comma would help.
• The scientific fascinations [...] Martian invasion force. – not in the cited source.
• In 1894 a French astronomer observed a 'strange light' on Mars, and published his findings in the scientific journal Nature on the second of August that year. Wells used this observation to open the novel, imagining these lights to be the launching of the Martian cylinders toward Earth. – unsourced. Batchelor p. 23 could be used for this (ironically, since the stuff that is currently cited to Batchelor p. 23–24 fails verification), but it would have to be rephrased to not run afoul of WP:Close paraphrasing.
• The Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli observed geological features on Mars in 1878 which he called canali – no, he didn't. He may have thought he did during the 1877 opposition (not in 1878)—though I'm not sure if he characterized the canali as geological features, specifically—but he was mistaken. What he did was describe linear features that later turned out to be illusory. Changing "observed geological" to "described linear" would fix that problem. It should also be clarified that the Martian canals were later determined to be optical illusions. Furthermore, this fails verification.
• This concept was explored by American astronomer Percival Lowell in the book Mars in 1895, speculating that these might be irrigation channels constructed by a sentient life form to support existence on an arid, dying world, similar to that which Wells suggests the Martians have left behind. – fails verification.
• The novel also presents ideas related to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, both in specific ideas discussed by the Narrator, and themes explored by the story. – unsourced.
• Mars, being an older world than the Earth – this lacks the important context that the planets were at the time believed to have formed sequentially such that planets closer to the Sun were formed later than planets further out.
• Wells has also theorised [...] creatures from another planet. – unsourced. Parts are also off-topic.

• There is overlap to the point of redundancy between the first two paragraphs.
• how it was bringing total destruction to parts of the South London landscape that were familiar to them – specifying South London doesn't reflect the cited source. I would replace "parts of the South London landscape" with "locations" or something along those lines.
• Wells wrote in a letter to Elizabeth Healey – who is Elizabeth Healey?
• The letter to Healey would seem to be an example of what the preceding paragraph describes. Why is it in a separate paragraph?
• The paragraph about the sculpture in Woking identifies the sculpture as The Martian, whereas the image of what is presumably the same sculpture identifies it as The Tripod. Which is it?
• The paragraph about the sculpture in Woking is a single-sentence paragraph. It's also not clear to me that this is where that content belongs.

• In the late 19th century, the British Empire was the predominant colonial power on the globe, making its domestic heart a poignant and terrifying starting point for an invasion by Martians with their own imperialist agenda. – this goes far beyond what the cited source actually says.
• which anticipated an apocalypse occurring at midnight on the last day of 1899 – the cited source says 1900.
• Fin de siècle doesn't mean "end of the age", it means "end of [the] century". The cited source does indeed give the former translation, but then it also gives the French term as "fine de siecle".
• Fin de siècle doesn't generally refer to the apocalyptic prediction mentioned here, but to the "spirit" of that time (similar to e.g. the Roaring Twenties in that respect). This would seem to be a misreading of the cited source.

• This is a practice familiar from the first publication of Charles Dickens' novels earlier in the nineteenth century. – unnecessary. Remove.
• In the late 1890s it was common for novels [...] – this is a good example of providing context. That being said, I think it would be better to rephrase it to bring the focus back to The War of the Worlds more quickly, e.g. by starting with "As was common [...]".
• April – December 1897 – the en dash should be unspaced, per MOS:ENTO.
• The first was published in the New York Evening Journal between December 1897 and January 1898. The story was published as Fighters from Mars or the War of the Worlds. It changed the location of the story to a New York setting. – needs copyediting. I think this could work as one sentence or as two sentences, but the current version with three sentences reads very poorly. I would also suggest leading with the title rather than the publisher (which also goes for the other version).
• Both pirated versions – pirated?
• were followed by Edison's Conquest of Mars by Garrett P. Serviss – surely this does not belong in this section?
• Even though these versions – this comes right after the mention of Edison's Conquest of Mars but refers to the two Fighters from Mars.
• Even though these versions are deemed as unauthorised serialisations of the novel, it is possible that H. G. Wells may have, without realising it, agreed to the serialisation in the New York Evening Journal. – vague to the point of MOS:WEASEL. "Deemed as unauthorised serialisations" by whom? Why is it necessary to qualify it as saying that "it is possible that H. G. Wells may have", and why should it be mentioned if those qualifiers are necessary? What is it that Wells did that may have constituted such an agreement? This sentence barely informs the reader of anything at all. This also clearly belongs in the preceding paragraph, not a separate one.
• Holt, Rinehart & Winston repressed the book in 2000 – in this context, I would parse "repress" as "suppress", which is of course the opposite of what they did. The word to use is "republish", but why mention this at all?

• This section is rather thin. I might expect it to cover how the reception has evolved over time, as in Pride and Prejudice#Reception, Frankenstein#Reception, and The Lord of the Rings#Reception.
• wrote that Wells' work had "a very distinct success" when serialised – is that to say that they wrote that at the time it was serialised, or that they wrote it later as an assessment of the serialisation in hindsight?
• Why is this image used in this section?

• This section goes WP:OFFTOPIC quite a bit.
• There are a number of plot similarities between Wells's book and The Battle of Dorking. In both books a ruthless enemy makes a devastating surprise attack, with the British armed forces helpless to stop its relentless advance, and both involve the destruction of the Home Counties of southern England. – this goes beyond what the cited source says a fair bit.
• However The War of the Worlds transcends the typical fascination of invasion literature with [...] – what the cited source says is "I. F. Clarke writes: 'At this point The War of the Worlds parts company with the mass of imaginary war fiction as it had developed since the time of The Battle of Dorking; for Wells's story transcends all the limitations of [...]", which is quite different.
• Although much of invasion literature may have been less sophisticated and visionary – this is an opinion, but it's presented in WP:WikiVoice.

• I find the entire concept of this section questionable. The section heading would seem to suggest that it's about scientific predictions made by the book that later turned out to be accurate (or inaccurate, as it may be). Bu that's not at all what it's about. It's not even about one single thing. Part of the section is about the scientific background, which is also covered in the "Scientific setting" section. Part of the section is about inspiring Goddard, which seems like it should be in a section about things and people who were inspired by the book. Part of it is about elements of warfare in the book that have later been compared to the World Wars. All in all, it's something of a mess and it goes way WP:OFFTOPIC.
• I daresay the average reader will not be familiar with what the nebular hypothesis is about. I would add "of Solar System formation".
• Charles Darwin's scientific theory of natural selection – linking to scientific theory here comes across as making a WP:POINT.
• These scientific ideas combined to present the possibility – that's not really accurate, and it's not what the cited source says, either. You can say that the ideas were combined, but not that the ideas themselves combined.
• By the time Wells wrote The War of the Worlds, there had been three centuries of observation of Mars through telescopes. Galileo observed the planet's phases in 1610 and in 1666 Giovanni Cassini identified the polar ice caps. – excessive detail to the point of going WP:OFFTOPIC.
• The Schiaparelli and Lowell stuff is mentioned twice in the article. The 1878 error is repeated here.
• If we're going to discuss the mode of space travel in the book, there should be a link to Space travel in science fiction somewhere.
• The analysis by Charles E. Gannon from this source should probably be attributed.
• Critic Howard Black wrote that [...] – I would add when (what year) Black wrote that.
• The quote from Black is overly lengthy. Try to paraphrase it instead.

• Huxley was already mentioned in the "Scientific setting" section. Figure out how best to cover this and stick to doing so once.
• The novel also suggests a potential future for human evolution and perhaps a warning against overvaluing intelligence against more human qualities. The Narrator describes the Martians as having evolved an overdeveloped brain, which has left them with cumbersome bodies, with increased intelligence, but a diminished ability to use their emotions, something Wells attributes to bodily function. – unsourced.
• The Narrator refers to an 1893 publication suggesting that the evolution of the human brain might outstrip the development of the body, and organs such as the stomach, nose, teeth, and hair would wither, leaving humans as thinking machines, needing mechanical devices much like the Tripod fighting machines, to be able to interact with their environment. – this is a very long sentence that needs copyediting for readability.
• At the time of the novel's publication the British Empire had conquered and colonised dozens of territories in Africa, Oceania, North and South America, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and the Atlantic and Pacific islands. – unsourced.
• Wells suggests this idea in the following passage: – according to whom? This is analysis.
• The "Social Darwinism" subsection is mostly off-topic. The first paragraph is about social Darwinism in the book, the second about social Darwinism in general, and the third one is about Wells. I looked at what Adam Roberts wrote in the cited source, and it's not even about the role social Darwinism played in Wells' life but about the role the British class system played.
• The "Religion and science" says Good and evil appear relative, his attempts to relate the invasion to Armageddon seem examples of his mental derangement, and His death [...] appears an indictment of his obsolete religious attitudes. These are all unattributed opinions.
• but the Narrator twice prays to God, and suggests that bacteria may have been divinely allowed to exist on Earth for a reason such as this, suggesting a more nuanced critique. – unsourced.

• The heading is ambiguous. Is it influences on or by this book? The section mixes the two.
• The novel originated several enduring Martian tropes in science fiction writing. These include Mars being an ancient world, nearing the end of its life, being the home of a superior civilisation capable of advanced feats of science and engineering, and also being a source of invasion forces, keen to conquer the Earth. – that's simply wrong. Utopian fiction was the main genre of Martian fiction at the time, for one thing. This also fails verification.
• Influential scientist Freeman Dyson – "influential" is a MOS:Word to watch.
• also acknowledged his debt – "also"?
• to reading H. G. Wells's fictions – so not this book specifically, then?
• established the vernacular term of 'martian' as a description for something offworldly or unknown – not what the source says. It says "the Martians" became a shorthand term for all sorts of inimical alien being.
• Gulliver's Travels seems rather off-topic here, and it was published in 1726 (not 1727).
• The first science fiction to be set on Mars may be Across the Zodiac: The Story of a Wrecked Record (1880) by Percy Greg. – it's not. Earlier works where the classification as science fiction may be debatable notwithstanding, the 1873 novel A Narrative of the Travels and Adventures of Paul Aermont among the Planets is set on Mars for part of the story. It may however be the first to be set primarily on Mars.
• It was a long-winded book concerned with a civil war on Mars. – why mention that it was long-winded? This is a conspicuous paraphrasing of the source's "The book is an exhaustingly long and, to be honest, boring account of a civil war on the Red Planet." that I think ends up on the wrong side of WP:Close paraphrasing, especially considering that "long-winded" is an unattributed opinion.
• Wells had already proposed another outcome for the alien invasion story in The War of the Worlds. – what does this have to do with anything?
• The stuff about Edison's Conquest of Mars is mentioned here and in the "Publication" section. Pick one.
• The War of the Worlds was reprinted in the United States in 1927 – that seems like publication history to me.
• John W. Campbell [...] The Kraken Wakes. – this is not self-evidently relevant or WP:DUE.
• The theme of alien invasion has remained popular to the present day and is frequently used in the plots of all forms of popular entertainment including movies, television, novels, comics and video games. – unsourced.
• Alan Moore's graphic novel, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Volume II, retells the events in The War of the Worlds. – unsourced.
• Misuse of Template:Main.
• The Tripods trilogy of books features a central theme of invasion by alien-controlled tripods. – unsourced.

• This section links to List of works based on The War of the Worlds as the main article, but that article covers sequels by other authors which this one does not apart from a brief mention.
• The stuff about the Welles radio adaptation is way out of proportion for this article. Condense it to the main points and leave the details to the The War of the Worlds (1938 radio drama) article.
• best selling – I would say either hyphenate or remove the space for grammar, but this should be removed.
• The cast included Jason Robards in Welles' role of 'Professor Pierson', Steve Allen, Douglas Edwards, Hector Elizondo and Rene Auberjonois. A Halloween-based special episode of Hey Arnold! was aired to parody The War of the Worlds; the costumes that the main characters wore referenced a species from Star Trek. An animated series of Justice League from 2001 begins with a three-part saga called "Secret Origins" and features tripod machines invading and attacking the city. – unsourced.
• which received generally positive reviews – so what?
• The Great Martian War 1913–1917 is a 2013 made-for-television science fiction film docudrama that adapts The War of the Worlds and unfolds in the style of a documentary broadcast on The History Channel. The film portrays an alternative history of World War I in which Europe and its allies, including America, fight the Martian invaders instead of Germany and its allies. The docudrama includes both new and digitally altered film footage shot during the War to End All Wars to establish the scope of the interplanetary conflict. The film's original 2013 UK broadcast was during the first year of the First World War centennial; the first US cable TV broadcast came in 2014, almost 10 months later. – unsourced.
• The image in this section adds basically nothing.

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:

   A lot of copyediting is needed, as noted above.

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

   See my comments above, especially concerning MOS:Words to watch.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

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

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Cursory spotchecking has revealed nothing overtly unreliable, though I would need to take a closer look to categorically rule it out.

   C. It contains no original research:

   There is quite a bit of unsourced material, and spotchecking has revealed that there is a fair amount that is not supported by the cited sources. See my comments above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig gives a couple of false positives where the copying was clearly done in the opposite direction. Spotchecking has however revealed a couple of instances of overly WP:Close paraphrasing that I have noted above, and since one of them was from an uncited source I am not optimistic that the rest of the article is compliant.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article does not adequately cover the book's legacy and lasting influence. This is generally considered to be one of the most influential works of science fiction ever written, and there are plenty of sources such an assessment could be attributed to. As noted above, I'm missing how the reception has evolved over time and more info about sequels by other authors. How has this book influenced the science fiction genre? The article mentions the alien invasion theme but barely goes into any details beyond that. Analysis is thin (though padded with loosely relevant material); some examples of aspects that can be covered can be found on on page 1333 of The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy. I would also suggest reading the chapter "H. G. Wells and the Great Disillusionment" (pp. 110–128) in the book Imagining Mars: A Literary History (2011) by Robert Crossley and the relevant parts (mainly pp. 120–127) of Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination (2005) by Robert Markley in addition to the sources already cited in the article (e.g. Batchelor) to find material to improve the article with.

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

   Large portions of the article are WP:OFFTOPIC or at least borderline so. See my comments above.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   Plenty of unattributed opinions, as noted above. The article does not clearly distinguish between fact and opinion.

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:

   All media are public domain, CC BY-SA 2.0, or CC BY-SA 3.0 (acceptable per WP:CFAQ).

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

   There is an excess of images to the point of redundancy, as noted above. There are also images accompanying text of questionable relevance, such as the Viking one.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is far from ready and would qualify for a WP:QUICKFAIL.

@Lankyant: I'm putting this on hold. The list of issues above is not exhaustive, but a sample of issues I noted while reading through the article. I don't think this can be brought up to WP:Good article standards within a reasonable time frame, but I would love to be proved wrong on that count. If you are willing and able to commit large amounts of time and effort to improving this article in the near future, please indicate so and address this first batch of issues I have brought up. Otherwise, I will close this nomination as unsuccessful in about a week or so (in which case the article can of course be re-nominated at any time). TompaDompa (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa Thank you so much for looking at this for me. I will begin to address the points you have put out but unfortunately December is a very bad time in terms of my workload and I had hoped to squeeze this in November. As such I ask that this is failed and I can then work on it the new year when I have enough time to dedicate to this. Thank you for your review and giving me the pointers and advice to start working on this. It's much appreciated :) Lankyant (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, closing this as unsuccessful. I will also add some maintenance templates to the article itself. TompaDompa (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]