Talk:Biology in fiction

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Biology in fiction/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maplestrip (talk · contribs) 21:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a ton of ground to cover here, and a good number of sub-articles that go in-depth on the various aspects listed. It is hard to know whether the article as it stands now is properly balanced. I think some of the aspects listed here could be expanded upon a bit (notably "Evolution", "Parasitism" and "Ecology"). Biology is a science, and therefore it makes sense that the article primarily covers 19th and 20th-century fiction. The focus on science-fiction specifically is not unexpected either. I do wonder if the article should be moved to Biology in science-fiction, if only to make the scope of the article clearer to readers who may expect it to cover life in fiction in a broader sense.

It is inevitable that the appearance of a science in fiction will often be in science fiction, but (for instance) 19th century Russian tuberculosis novels and recent books such as Maddaddam show, as the article states, that this is not always so, and the article accordingly has the wider scope of all of fiction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

My review is split into two parts: the general Good Article criteria listed in a template, and a set of thoughts and comments (mostly things to fix or improve). The article has not passed immediately, so I will give the nominator, Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs), time to improve the article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 21:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. I'll attend to your comments promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   "Aspects" and "Functions" both run the risk of being WP:SYNTHESIS to some degree. One sub-section is sourced entirely to one source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article is about biology in science-fiction specifically (which is probably fine) and article sometimes gives specific examples that do not increase a reader's understanding of the topic at large.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are generally good and nicely public domain.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

With the changes made in the past twelve hours, I believe the article meets the Good Article criteria. It can still be improved upon, as Wikipedia articles always can, but it is of very respectable quality. Thank you for your hard work, Chiswick Chap, and congratulations! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Very many thanks for the thoughtful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments

I do believe you will have to fix at least a few of the issues I've listed below in order to have me pass this. You don't have to fix all of these issues, and some are bigger than others, but it is at least a list of things that could be improved here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 21:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Do the "aspects of biology" as listed in this article come from anywhere, or is this a sort of synthesis set of aspects we have come across while researching this topic? Might there be more "aspects"?

Many come from Parker, who looks over the field very widely but unfortunately only up to the 1970s, and without considering literary fiction (depending on how one classifies Verne and Wells, who wrote when "science fiction" was not a current term). Stableford too is a reliable and useful guide to the breadth of the field (he covers and the article cites his "themes" including ecology, evolution, disease, genetics, parasitism, and symbiosis). Coming at this from the opposite direction, the article is the intersection of biology, a science with a well-defined scope, and fiction. Among the biological sciences, evolutionary biology, the biomedical sciences, genetics, and ecology loom very large. We've certainly covered what the GA criteria call "the main points".

I am convinced. Thank you for the well-considered response and citing it in the article.

• The first sentence in the section "Evolution" is too long, and is better served split into two sentences.

Done.

• It is a bit unfortunate that the first paragraph in "Disease" isn't able to explain why disease is a popular theme in fiction (despite the Guardian's headline). This might be the optimal way to improve this section, if you could find a source.

Well, life and death will always be major themes in all art. Added the claim by The Economist that apocalyptic fiction correlates with the Doomsday Clock's closeness to midnight.

Good addition!

• The description of the The Scarlet Plague image explains that the story was reprinted, but this is not relevant for the article. A better description would be somthing like "Jack London's 1912 The Scarlet Plague (reprinted in 1949) takes place after an uncontrollable epidemic."

Done.

• I do not feel that "The film Gattaca did attempt to portray science accurately but was criticised by scientists" adds anything to the article.

It is given as a counter to the previous sentence, about inaccuracy.

More specifically, the sentence doesn't explain why this specific film was still criticised by scientists.

• The "Parasitism" section could explain why fiction frequently makes use of intentionally disgusting parasites specifically, possibly digging into the negative connotations people have with regards to parasites.

Done.

• The Star Wars and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy examples of symbiosis adds very little to the article. These can be trimmed out completely and it would not affect the reader's understanding of the main topic. In general, you would like to limit the article to bigger themes across works, rather than specific examples from specific works, even if they are popular.

Done.

• Shouldn't the "Ecology" section explain what Ecofiction is?

Done.

Great expansion!

• "Humanoid" is not defined upon its first usage.

Fixed.

• The cited Independent article does not suggest that authors and artists may design aliens to look like humans because this might just be accurate. What is suggested in "an alternative reason," therefore, does not match the citation.

Fixed.

• There are too many commas in the first sentence of the "Fictional plants" paragraph, making it difficult to read. I don't think it's a good idea to give example before even saying that fictional plants are common. Are most fictional plants alike carnivorous friffids? Probably not.

Reworded.

• The sentence when even the potatoes in Erewhon could have "low cunning". confuses me.

Reworded.

• Are fictional plants still common?

Reworded.

• I like the gallery in the "Monsters" section, but by nature, it is biased towards 1950s pulp.

We're unfortunately constrained to material out of copyright. In future years, it will be possible to add later materials.

• "Whereas optimistic visions of technological progress are common enough in hard science fiction, pessimistic views of the future of humanity are far more usual in fiction based on biology." This is a very interesting sentence to me, and possibly the crux of this section. Could you give me the direct quote from Biological Themes in Modern Science Fiction that is cited here? I cannot access the book myself.

The theme is somewhat pervasive in the book, but on pp. 80-81 Parker writes "Biological fiction does, then, offer an occasional portrait of successful biological adaptation on both the individual and societal levels, but the failures far outnumber even the qualified successes. ... the stultified societies depicted by Huxley and Herbert exemplify man's inability to adapt successfully even to those changes he brings about himself. Although few writers portray the species as doomed to extinction, almost all biological fiction echoes Aldiss's complaint ... that man is psychologically unable to cope with the scientific and technological advances he makes." There's more in the same vein.

Thank you :)

• I find the Arthur C. Clarke and Brian Aldiss examples in "Optimism and pessimism" pretty weak, as the source does not really approach them in that way. I think it's fair enough, though. The rest of this section is pretty strong.

Noted.

• The "Biological parables" section is fascinating and in-depth, but it is completely based on a single source. Are there any other sources that have discussed this topic at all? I think the section is getting a lot of undue weight right now. I don't believe all four authors need their own paragraph in this section, and would prefer to see a more general overview of biological parables in science-fiction.

All right. I've trimmed and merged the first 3 authors, leaving only Le Guin, certainly the most subtle, with a paragraph as the best example of the approach, with strikingly inventive biology.

I still think the article goes too in-depth about the specifics of Le Guin's constructed world, but the article is much more balanced now and I appreciate your work in trimming this section.

• The example of "Structure and themes" honestly spur more questions than it answers. Moreover, in this case, it seems more of a motif than a structural thing. Do you have any other examples of this function?

Flanagan used the illustrations to help guide and inspire his choice of characters in the novel, so it's much more than a motif. I've added another example, Thomas Mann's Death in Venice, where the progress of a cholera epidemic mirrors the protagonist's feelings.

I do think the section works much better now. I wouldn't be surprised if using physical disease to mirror a person's mental state is quite a common theme in fiction, but alas, finding good sources on such broad topics is difficult. As it stands, it is good.