Talk:The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction/GA1

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written, though has issues regarding WP:UNDUE.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. However, it lacks information at points.

4. Seems mostly neutral at a glance, but article's author is highly associated with the subject, which may disrupt its neutrality.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale.

Lead

-This is not technically a lead issue, but I figured I'd knock it out of the way at the start: I am aware that you write for the Encyclopedia as a member (Which you have directly in past discussions with each other), and I believe you are meant to disclose your WP:COI on the talk page and/or somewhere publicly like your user page, and I see neither. Forgive me if I am unfamiliar with that, but that does impact neutrality a bit. Make sure you go through the proper venues in regards to this, since while this shouldn't impact your ability to work on the article so long as you remain neutral it is important to note.

-This lead seems particularly short, and barely covers anything in any of the body sections. I'd expand this with information from throughout the article if possible.

History

-Is there any information about the creation of the Encyclopedia? Given these seem like decently publicly facing figures discussed in the History section (And notably so when the image itself describes the discussion of the encyclopedia's creation!), it feels a bit odd to me that there's nothing included on how the concept was created and developed before the first publication.

-What was included in the second edition's addendum?

-"by SFE Ltd in association with Victor Gollancz, Orion's science fiction imprint" Was SFE Limited Orion's science fiction imprint? This sentence is very unclear right now, especially since what comes after this chunk doesn't flow naturally with the rest either.

-"giving a sense of unity to the whole" Feels like very opinionated wording in an otherwise just facts-based section. I'd remove it.

-"randomly selected from the relevant Gallery pages" This sentence is a bit unclear given the gallery is never discussed in any part of the article.

Contents

-This should likely be before the History section, since it gives an overview of what the Encyclopedia usually includes and discusses (With parts of these brought up in History).

Reception

-I can't help but notice how ginormously large this section is compared to the rest of the article, being much larger than all the other sections combined. Many citations also take up entire paragraphs, which compared to other GAs I've seen seems overly long. As a whole the section feels a bit WP:UNDUE in terms of size compared to the rest of the article. While I understand it is going to be longer because of the multiple editions, you should try to pare down the length of reviewer comments if possible, since much of this can be summed up in half the length it is currently described in. For example, each source does not need an entire paragraph to discuss, and many similar topics can likely be combined together.

-"Calling it as an extraordinarily ambitious and largely successful reference work, markedly expanded and more authoritative than its predecessor, offering unprecedented breadth, particularly in its coverage of film, television, themes, and critical concepts, while maintaining a strong literary focus" seems highly excessive and overly descriptive, for example, for something that can be summarized as "felt the book was a highly effective reference work that covered a wide range of topics." In terms of common groupings, many reviewers discuss the flaws in the Encyclopedia, such as gaps in the reference work's content, multiple times in given sections for example, which may be worth grouping up if they all discuss the same things. Other examples exist throughout the section as well, such as those who felt overall the encyclopedia served as an effective reference work. This is largely just at a glance over the section, since I feel it needs a significant trim before a proper full prose review can be done here since I'd likely be repeating myself a bit due to this being a recurring issue in all four sections.

-Is there no reception on the fourth edition? Given there's reception on all the others the lack of this one feels a bit odd, but I understand if there's just nothing on it given its recency.

Awards

-Looks good

Overall

@Piotrus: Overall on an initial pass I feel this article has a lot of very noticeable issues, namely the lack of a COI disclosure, a large gap in the information on its history, a short lead, and an overly long reception section. That said, I do not feel this is unworkable for GA status, and am happy to work through this during the review process if you are. If you need more explicit examples on anything I am happy to provide a more thorough review if needed, and if I can clarify anything do let me know. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 I will try to find the time to work on the issues you raise; in particular you are right it would be better to group points made by reviewers by theme rather than by review, as it should eliminate at least some redundancy. As for missing information, I am afraid I didn't see anything else about the history in the sources cited. I can ask the editors, but they have not deigned to reply to my earlier query when I asked if they are aware of any sources I missed, nor did they offered any feedback regarding the entry here. If we are lucky, maybe I can motivate them to write up some history content for SFE or associated media they run (). I can't promise, however, that such a source will be created; while, as you note, I am involved with SFE (as in, I have been writing entries for them for over a year), I don't have much of a "pull" with them (I used to send them a bunch of broader suggestions, but gave up after what I feel many were dismissed or simply ignored). As for COI, well, I don't consider my COI here bigger than if I, as a Wikipedia volunteer, were to work on Wikipedia entry here. As for lack of reviews about more recent editions - I looked hard and couldn't find anything (and as I said, the editors didn't reply to my query of they are aware of any sources I missed). At this point I believe I found all relevant sources; it's just the matter of copyediting the article here, per your suggestions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus

-On history, have you done any digging yourself at all? From what it sounds like you're just referring to what others have given rather than an actual search of your own. I would try searching if possible for interviews from the creators or perhaps some older sources that may have things not in newer sources. If nothing else turns up I will not fault it but I do want to at least ensure you've done a thorough search.

-As for COI, I have seen many put down COIs for less (Such as membership, just working there, etc) and despite not having much "pull" you do seem pretty closely involved with the creation of new content. I would mark something down just to be safe unless there is a guideline in the COI policies that says you shouldn't.

-No issues on the fourth edition's reception if you can't find anything.

Let me know once you've finished addressing the text reviews and/or if you have any questions and I will hit up the spotcheck. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 Well, I did my usual BEFORE via Google/GS/GB for any and all reliable sources mentioning that work. If there is anything out there I have missed, I'd like to know - and also, how it was searched for, so I can learn new tricks. That said, I haven't focused on interviews. Hold that thought- I see some possible new sources there, but it may take me some days to process them. I will ping you when the new version of the article is ready. PS. I am not sure what actionable stuff you are asking for with regards to the COI stuff, if any. There may be a related Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Templates to be put on the talk page, but I do think it's overkill since I am not paid or compensated in any form for my volunteering at SFE. (Going on a tangent here, but I think folks have stronger feelings and COI when editing topics related to their faith, nationality or gender issues, but we don't COI template such stuff...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 I took an axe to the 2nd edition and did a major rewrite, shorting it and organizing it in a different way. Compare current The_Encyclopedia_of_Science_Fiction#Second_edition_2 to User:Piotrus/SFE_rewrite#Second_edition_2. Is this what you had in mind? Is there any tidbit you think we should restore, or is it fine? If this is the way to go, I'll see if I can cut a few words etc. from the 1st and 3rd edition sections next. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus At a glance I'd say some of the smaller, one sentence paragraphs can likely be merged together (Such as 1 and 2, which flow well into each other, for example) for conciseness. Also, perhaps the large block of individual author citations could be condensed into one multi-cite following the first sentence of paragraph two (Subsequently, the second edition received widespread critical acclaim...), since those would back up the top sentence and keep the section down (Though, also, I am not sure you need to cite all of these if they do not add anything significant to the reception, so it may be worth axing the less significant ones to the article if they don't add much content wise. I'll leave that up to your discretion.)

I'll review more closely the prose itself once all changes have been implemented since this is understandably a work in progress, but for now the formatting is looking better, especially if taken to the rest of the article.

Take your time with this, I am willing to give you as much as needed to address the above. Ping me if anything else changes or if you have any further clarifications. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 Take a look - I think the new version has all the fixes and additions you asked. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking better. Some comments for reception:

-"and even illustrations" I'd remove even here.

-What is the reliability of SF Commentary? Fanzines traditionally don't tend to be reliable to my knowledge, and a brief glance over Gillespie's article doesn't seem to show any degree of reliability as a writer (Such as the magazine being written with a strong editorial, or with Gillespie being a subject matter expert beyond just being a fan who wrote a good fanzine). I'd personally remove this if you can't find some sources confirming Gillespie's status as a SME.

-Hyperlink Anglophone.

-"saw it as defining cultural statement about the genre at the end of the twentieth century," Could this be clarified? This doesn't quite make sense at present.

-"Similar endorsments were offered by..." I already stated this above but this should be trimmed, there's no need to attribute every individual person who gave a review to this book. I'd remove most of these and keep only the most reliable/important attributions, and shift them up to the "criticial acclaim" line at the start of the paragraph to verify that statement. If these sources don't say anything the others do, there doesn't seem to be much need to include them.

-I would merge 3rd-5th paragraphs into larger paragraphs. Perhaps 3rd could be merged into second once the Similar endorsements section is gone? I could also see these three just being one paragraph if shuffled a little.

-What does praising it for "authority" mean?

I'd say that's overall my main comments. I made a few small adjustments to text (Removing an extra space and adding a few commas) that shouldn't be too controversial. Let me know on these. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 "and even illustrations" - I have reworded the sentence slightly for editorializing, but I think the factoid/opinion itself is useful.

Regarding SF Commentary / Bruce Gillespie, I think it's fine, given it has an entry at SFE itself and is likely notable, , and more to the point, "SF Commentary was nominated three times for the Best Fanzine Hugo and won three Ditmar Awards; and received the FAAn Award for best genzine in 2024".

Anglophone - done.

Wolfe's statement: how about "saw it as a work that defines the genre at the end of the twentieth century"?

"Similar endorsments were offered by". This is subjective, but I think there is value in a complete list of endorsements. You say you'd "keep only the most reliable/important attributions," but that risks editorializing - how do we define who is the most important or reliable? We could consider cutting the two mentions that have no blue links (Stephen P. Brown in Science Fiction Eye and Patrick Hudson in The Zone), although that is still iffy, as the Eye has a SFE entry and is therefore likely notable; The Zone would be the one to cut I guess, since it has no SFE entry and I can't find much about it (ISFDb link, also ), the author info there suggests they are a minor writer/critic. Nonetheless my preference is to leave all sources there, as long as they are reliable (and I don't see what makes The Zone unreliable - it may be minor but it seems to meet SPS+, as a magazine (fanzine?) published by what appears to a small press).

Para merger 3-5 - done.

praising it for "authority" - I meant that they saw it as authoritative, but I guess that's semi-obvious, so I cut that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus

-No opposition to keeping the factoid, mostly just a wording issue there.

-I'm still not sure on Gillespie; Wikipedia:SPS states that "Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I'm not seeing the latter, and I'm not sure I'm seeing the former given Gillespie's work has been entirely in fanzines. In pop culture spaces I work in, prominent fansites, even if headed by one major figurehead, are not traditionally considered reliable sources. I fail to see what makes this different given Gillespie is not an academic or a journalist and, again, has only won awards in regards to being a good fanzine, not for any other authoritorial statement.

-I would shift Wolfe's statement to past tense to line up with the rest of the article but I think that should be fine for now.

-I can understand the issues with subjectivity, but I would still axe this section. The advice I have seen in regards to reception is not to include every source on the topic, especially in cases of excessive coverage. It doesn't benefit the reader at all to know a variety of oddball publications had the exact same thoughts, and additionally it is also a bit questionable to me for many of these sources to only be cited to back up the "similar endorsements" statement; I imagine these sources have got to have thoughts that differ from each other somewhat. I struggle to believe that they all say the exact same thing, and even if they do, that half a paragraph of accreditation is needed to make that point. I stand firm on trimming this down somehow, however best it should be done.

-Para merger looks good at a glance. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 Would you like to put it on hold while we ask about Gillespie at WP:RSN or would you have some other suggestion? I do stand by my explanation above that he seems to meet SPS to me, given his fanzine was nominated for the most prestigious fanzine award and won several second-tier ones. In my experience, we accept much lower treshold of what makes a source reliable for example for video games, where often it's enough to just show that an outlet (website) has some semi-transparent rules, editorial board, and/or writers who contribute to reliable presses. Common-sense-wise, someone with such a large body of critical works, even if in relatively minor outlets, is a reliable expert in the field (it's not like we are talking about red flags like pseudoscience or COI stuff).

I am unsure which section you want to axe? Do you mean you want to complete delete entire Reception section? Surely I misunderstand something here. At this point, with Reception trimmed down by more than half from the initial version, I think the article is in good shape (I'll adjust the tense for Wolfe's sentence now). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus I am fine with putting it on hold if you are in regards to the Gillespie source. In terms of sections, I mean the chunk of text after "Similar endorsements were offered by...". I apologize if that came across unclearly. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bruce_Gillespie/SF_Commentary - done. Note that I am not inclined to remove any content that is judged reliable by RSN; I think it is useful and WP:NOTPAPER and the requirement for GA+ articles to be as comprehensive as possible, plus I believe that for articles about works that are reviewed, any and all reliable reviews that can be located are WP:DUE. PS. No need to apologize, I have made my share of confusing statements over the years : _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus GA Criteria says: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I would argue this level of listing sources would fall under that, since most readers are not going to care that a certain site or sites said the exact same things that other sources have already said. The sources already used are comprehensive enough for covering what exists in terms of this article's reception, and I strongly believe the others are not necessary and run afoul of due Wikipedia:WEIGHT given to the topic. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 I appreciate you explaining this, but my view hasn't changed. We can ask for a 3O on this, or you can fail this, as I disagree per my comment above. I have already cut 25% of content from this article, although I concur much of it was redundant and you made a good call. But, as they say, I've reached my limit in how much I think this can be gutted. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus that is perfectly understandable; I'd prefer to give this a 3O since I don't feel this is a particularly quickfail worthy issue. I'll leave a notice on the talk page shortly. If the additional opinion concurs with you I will have no further issue on my part.

That said in the next few days, since I do feel a bit bad about the holdup, once I have some more time I will hit up the spotcheck for you so we can at least progress a bit further into the review in the interim. I will ping you once I've gone through everything. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:57, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I have just started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations which I have pinged you at. Feel free to drop more of your thoughts in there. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

30: @Piotrus: good job with an article that is dear to your heart. I agree with Pokelego999 that this is unnecessary detail, and I would ask you to consider moving it to a footnote so that the content can be preserved if readers wish to find out more. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@Viriditas Footnote is an excellent compromise, I'll do it soon. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 And done. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus I'm still a bit skeptical about including this info at all but I am willing to accept this compromise for now if it moves the review forward.

I will begin the spotcheck tomorrow, but other editors at my extra opinion request did point out some things I felt would be worthwhile to address. One is the COI issue, which while I have noted above, I intended to circle back on later after the spotcheck once further issues with the article were resolved and I could get a second opinion, but given other editors' comments at the second opinion above I do believe this should be promptly addressed prior to me engaging with the spotcheck given the nature of this review. I'm not quite sure I feel comfortable letting the article go without it entirely, frankly.

Additionally, I did not notice myself at first, but I do have to concur with the other editor there that much of the negative reception section is very much sidelined or written in an otherwise dismissive tone. Were it not for the COI issues I would not care as much, but given they exist I do feel I have to address them at least to some degree. I can likely comment on this further following the spotcheck once I see what the sources actually say, but I do feel this needs some changing if the article is to pass. I will let you know on this once I perform the spotcheck.

Apologies about this review being so complicated, but given its unique circumstances and what other editors have said (Which I believe is valid rationale to consider) I do feel it's better to discuss than to not. Please let me know on the above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 All fine with me, but I have no idea how you want me to address the COI issue. I believe the reception section is neutral, as the sources are overwhelmingly positive, but if you find this not to be the case, feel free to tell me what do adjust for neutrality. The criticism of SFE such as its lack of coverage for short form writers, non-Western concepts and like has a dedicated paragraph at "Second edition", there is a bit more about issues with CD. Per your previous request, everything - including criticism - was shortened in the rewrite, but I can't think of anything missing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus just declaring your conflict of interest, likely via a tag on the talk page and/or on your user page, would likely suffice for the time being. I'll take a look over the sources in greater depth later per above so I'll keep you posted on the rest. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 I thought that there is a connected contributor template to add to article's talk pages, although I cannot locate it. If you do, I likely adopt it here, although I still don't see this as an issue larger than an active volunteer editing a page about Wikipedia. On a separate note, I'll update my userpage bio to note I am a contributor to SFE, good idea. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

{{Connected contributor}}. Please note the different params. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus Yes, this template above is what I am referring to. I would apply this to the talk page if possible. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 @Viriditas Thanks, that's the one I was thinking of. Feel free to add it to the talk page here with parameters you think are relevant, perhaps linking to my userpage which now states I am a SFE contributor as well (diff). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Piotrus, I recommend you do it yourself, as only you know how to fill out the correct params for your COI. Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I will add it now. Other editor should add the "checked=" parameter, however. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the checked param is going to have to wait until Pokelego999 looks over the sources per his comments above. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, that's expected. Take your time. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I recommend taking possession of the ball (you good with English metaphors?) and reviewing the comments about neutrality on the GA talk page and being proactive. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess I am not good with them, since I thought I am proactive, replying here quickly and addressing all reasonable concerns. You yourself wrote that we are now waiting for Pokelego999 to "look over the sources per his comments above". If there is a specific request for me to do something else, I missed it, so if you see it, please quote it here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

By proactive, I mean taking criticism like David Eppstein's into account and doing something about it. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

And I have even less clue what you are talking about, no Eppstein is cited here or in the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Ps. After 10 minutes of digging through your edit history I figured out what you meant. Please don't assume I am aware of and following every discussion in which people talk about me, without notifying me of that (Pokelego999 did ping me when he OPed that discussion, but nobody else did, and I wasn't aware that there was any subsequent discussion there). Anyway, now that I found the relevant comments, I've adjusted a relevant sentence, as I agree it may fit better there. As for the rest, I believe the current balance of reviews and points is DUE (and yes, they are mostly positive, since the reception, in my reading, was overwhelmingly so), but if anyone wants to restore or add a quote or point they feel relevant, they are welcome do so. There was more content here before the entire reception was shortened by 50%, feel fee to restore anything that you think was unnecessarily removed (although I concur with Pokelego999 that the rewrite mostly removed redundancy without sacrificing anything of value - but YMMV, be bold). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Just a note I'll have limited Internet access over the next few days; my replies may be slow. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Pokelego999, how does the current version look? Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus @Viriditas Apologies about the wait, it's been busy recently and I've only had time for smaller scale fixes on the site lately. My comments from a general, fine-tooth comb pass of the reception and its sourcing:

-I feel the whole first section can likely be pared down pretty easily by cutting out a lot of fluff words. To start with Watson's Foundation source, "Watson noted his positive surprise" and the sentence that comes with it is very odd wording all things considered and can probably just be pared down to "Watson noted only a small number of errors, which he felt were easily fixable in a second edition." I feel the quote about it being the first encyclopedia of its kind should likely come first before the errors comment, and that "positively commenting on the breadth and scope of the entries, and even the illustrations, which he found informative, and not just decorations" should just be pared down to "positively commenting on the breadth and scope of its entries". The illustrations don't seem too relevant to devote so much detail to when they are mentioned for one sentence in the entire review by Watson.

-Gillespie's review is incredibly brief, and hardly touches on much as a review. I would just shorten this down to "Australian fanzine SF Commentary writer Bruce Gillespie highlighted the book's comprehensiveness, though similarly noted some missing notable entries." The phrase "although noted some omissions that he hopes will one day be added" is not reflected by the source, which only states he is unhappy some terms are not incorporated, not that he hopes to see them added. "English tone", on the other hand, feels a bit unclear without knowledge of English literature, and I feel it's better off removed. As a side note, "Everybody else has done so already, and no book in science fiction has received such universal praise" seems like it would be a decent bit to include at the start of the section to indicate a wider consensus on reception for the book (Such as "Critics universally praised the novel upon its release" or something like that)? Conversely, though, I must also question why only two reviews are used given Gillespie mentions how prolific the amount of reviews for this are.

-I feel like the price of the book may be important to note, since both reviews note it is very overpriced, yet recommend buying anyway. Perhaps something like, "Both critics characterized the book as expensive, but stated the amount of content made up for it." or something similar.

-Small note, but I would hyperlink fanzine if possible since it's not a super prolific term outside of fandoms.

-"Subsequently, the second edition received widespread critical acclaim and was frequently described as an indispensable reference work for science fiction readers, scholars, critics, and libraries, who commonly emphasized its intellectual ambition and critical value, noting that it functioned not only as a reference work but also as a source of analysis and discovery." Feels incredibly long for something meant to sum up critics' opinions, especially given it is entirely uncited. I would shorten to just "The second edition received positive reviews from critics, who praised its value as a reference work" since the rest honestly feels like a bit of a stretch and very strongly opinionated all things considered. Additionally, I still feel as though nb 1 should be moved to the end of this sentence, including past its alterations. This needs verification of some kind and you may as well use the pile of reviews for something.

-I will note some sources discussing the second edition discuss shortcomings of the first in comparison (For example, Source 31 discusses how the section on female scholars was lacking and covered by a male writer instead, which seems like a pretty notable flaw to cover, while Source 2 discusses people's negative thoughts on apparent bias in the writing of the first edition). Go through and incorporate some more into the first edition's section, since it seems from what I can glance here that it is sorely lacking in terms of coverage.

-Source 27 (The Locus review by Fowler) seems a bit odd to me that it's only used once to verify the high attendance at Eastercon. The review goes on for considerable length, which at a glance covers a lot of negatives of the new edition scattered throughout. I can't access the whole thing because of IA's restrictions, but this source feels particularly underutilized and contradictory to the sheer amount of praise heaped onto the second edition later.

-Is there any way to access any of the sources cited in the second paragraph of the Second edition's section? Verification for these is particularly difficult given the entire paragraph is cited to offline sources. Other unreadable ones include Source 29 in the CD-ROM section, Source 42 and 44 in the Third Edition's section.

-"Frequently mentioned criticisms included occasional factual errors and omissions, perceived British bias, inconsistent coverage, underrepresentation of some non-Western topics and short-fiction authors, and the absence of entries for individual books." Do forgive me from straying from the source review briefly here, but this seems like... a lot to cover in just one sentence. Given how two paragraphs are dedicated to glazing the book and its widespread use, with the second highlighting multiple individual touchpoints, it's odd to me how little the coverage here on the negatives are here, especially since Edward James is the only critic chosen to be highlighted and the only negative focused on beyond a brief mention (The illustrations) are turned into a positive. This is hard to verify given I cannot access many of these sources, but again this is extremely odd to me and something I cannot overlook as easily given your COI status regarding this article. This doesn't feel balanced, especially given, with how many negatives are brought up, that there is definitely some negative coverage here that is not being discussed in equal measure to the prior paragraph.

-Reviewing Source 40 for example, the writer seems to strongly criticize how many words are being dedicated to then-recent additions. From what little I can glance, some more negatives do exist. Source 2 similarly criticizes a lot of notable exclusions from the book, as well as a lot of inclusions they feel are unfitting (Such as recent films and tangentially related authors who don't focus on sci-fi) as well as the homogenity of the authors' voices and biases in the essays section.

-Similarly, I am not quite fond of your usage of sentences where multiple themes are touched on with a clumping of citations put at the end. It's unclear which authors are meant to be verifying which themes, and it seems unlikely to me that all the authors are covering all of the points you're covering (Especially in regards to negatives). It makes this particularly hard to review since I cannot verify half of what you've written in the slightest.

-I don't have much issue with the CD-ROM section. However, I believe the first citation (Fiona Kelleghan) is using the wrong reference since it is citing a Gary Wolfe Locus issue instead of a SF Studies one.

-"Reviews of the online third edition were highly positive, with commentators praising its comprehensiveness, usability, and continuing development." Again, this lacks verification. This is especially noteworthy given the sheer lack of sources in this section; of the ones here, only two are substantial reviews, and neither I can access.

-Source 43 (Butler) is something I would remove. The book is discussing an author and discusses how the third edition is an upcoming release that will likely be popular. This is not an authoritative review of the book since the author never even read it. Even besides that this is quite a trivial mention all things considered and hardly DUE weight compared to other reception pieces in the section.

-The Black Gate source is entirely out of place in the Third Edition's reception. Not only is it hardly about the third edition and instead about the Encyclopedia through all its editions (Something that should be placed at the top of the section alongside the comment of positive reviews of the first edition) but the Black Gate source also does not describe it so uniformly positively, stating that "The Science Fiction Encyclopedia is now little more than a curiosity." This seems to me that the author indicates its influence has waned despite their simultaneous description of how it influenced the field when it first released. This should be moved up and a bit about the waning influence included, as that seems a relatively important tidbit to exclude.

-Also worth noting this discusses the influence of the first edition on reference works and study, and many reviews of later editions also cover this. This seems odd to exclude from that section.

Going through this and it strikes me that there is a significant lack of balance of coverage in a number of these reviews, and a lot of generalizations and broad claims cited to unverifiable material made by a COI author. Many of these sources are underutilized and broad gaps in coverage that are easily filled by source content are missing from the article. Another thing I'll note is a lack of overarching reception to the Encyclopedia as a whole, which seems odd given its seeming prominence as a reference work as discussed by critics.

I feel right now there is a lot missing and a lot just not included. I've signposted some places for improvement above but I cannot give more than this without access to a lot of the unverifiable sources. Please let me know if there is some way to access these. I will note I did not review all the sources from the positive review mass in the second edition's section since I believe what was taken from the body is more than enough to show my points, but my points about the other sources apply there as well. If more can be used from them, do so.

I am highly inclined to fail this as it stands for failing to represent a neutral point of view and for not being fully comprehensive in its coverage. That said, I am willing to work through this with you if you would like. For now, I would highly suggest implementing the above. As I understand you are break, take your time with responding, and feel free to work on this over time at your own pace. If you would prefer I fail this to allow further time to work on this on your own time outside the confines of a GAN, then I am fine with that as well, but I will make it known I would prefer you run this article by and re-nominate it only after another, entirely unaffiliated editor from this topic and from you has reviewed it first to ensure there are no further problems in the article and to ensure no potential COI are at play. That should likely make a further renomination easier ensuring any and all issues from this review are addressed.

All that said, I am willing to discuss some of these points further if need be. From either of you, ping me if you have any questions or clarifications (Apologies if there are any grammatical errors, it is 2 AM where I am and I am very tired.) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 I sincerely appreciate the very throughout review and the effort you put into it. I also have to admit I am somewhat burned at the moment, partially because I just finished a week intensive reviewing of wiki articles submitted by my students, and partially because I feel it is a bit unfair - no offense meant - that you now say some content is touched upon too briefly, after you asked me to make effectively cut ~75% of the reception content. Sure, some of the stuff you ask for likely wasn't there, but I also expect something else was. Again, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate your review, I do, but given I am also now entering my summer holiday period in which I know that due to family IRL stuff I have less time to dedicate to wiki, I do think you can fail this, as I don't know when I'll find both the time and motivation to work on this.

That said, considering how much work you already put into this (once again, I do appreciate the effort you already went through, it is clearly above average), I would ask you to seriously consider going the proverbial last mile, i.e. taking this over and following up on all of your own suggestions, which I do think are mostly sound. It is always easier for someone to follow up on what they suggest than for the other party (some of you comments would require clarification to me, as they can be subjective, etc.). This would also take care of the alleged COI issues. Of course, I'd be happy to share all the hard to access sources with you, I should be able to locate the copies (some sources I received from Resource Exchange as they are indeed not available online). Quick note: for the stuff behind IA access wall, see WP:IAACCESS - you should be able to access them in just a few days (read third sentence, note full stop, note no conditional, extrapolate, don't advertise so we can have nice things, enjoy :P). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus that is entirely understandable. No hard feelings, and I do apologize if this review comes across a bit harsh in places; I do want this to be the best it can be before going off. I'll fail it for now but you're free to try again at any point in the future.

I'd be fine with implementing some of this since most of it isn't too hard to incorporate into the article, but I would appreciate any and all help with accessing the sources only you have access to for doing so. Please leave me a message on my user talk (Or I could leave one on yours, your preference) about it, I'd really appreciate the help where possible (And it will be helpful for further verification). Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 Can you send me an email to piotr.konieczny at gmail?I'll reply attaching sources _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

PS. Email not needed. I prepared a Google Drive folder with most offline sources I could locate in my archives; see https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1br-AUi_vj9DZi0iR-rBKY8wvCAeaQFKl?usp=sharing

I couldn't locate sources 42/44 (academic reviews of CD); I am guessing I could access them from my uni account, but I have limited access to it until late August - you may want to ask for them at WP:WRE (which is where I got most sources). Main folder has PDFs I labelled well, subfolder has... well, poorly labelled stuff that I knew what they were in February, but I am sorry to say I mostly forgot by now. I hope with what is here you'll be able to access most content, and everything else should be just a day or two for someone with good uni access to get send to you from WRE (I think the link has all the hard-to-get sources, the ones I had to wait many days or weeks for, like The Zone, that one was the hardest to locate...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus sounds good, thank you for the quick response. I'll take a look at it in the coming days and see what I can implement. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 My pleasure. Feel free to ping me about issues/etc. but I am on traveling until late August, so my speed of replies and ability to access some sources (like my uni account) are somewhat limited until then. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 Just wondering if you had time to work on this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus Hi, I've been super busy the past few months, both irl and because I've been wrapping up a few articles I promised I'd work on for people as well. I can still probably get to it, but don't let me stop you if you have time on your hands and you want to do it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus I've overhauled the reception section per my previous suggestions, I do believe this should now do a better job sticking to wider themes across the reviews while not being particularly positive or negative and maintaining neutrality throughout. I've expanded on coverage of the CD-ROM version to include a few reviewer thoughts, as well as the First Edition's section based on commentary present in reviews of later editions. I've pared down the Third Edition and reorganized a lot of the Second Edition to avoid source bloat and stick to what I am able to verify. Feel free to give this a copyedit, it is very late where I am and I might have made some typos somewhere.

If you feel unhappy with anything here I am happy to bring in a third opinion to weigh their thoughts on the matter, and I can perform further alterations from there, but I believe for now that this should be comprehensive and avoid any neutrality issues. Let me know how you're feeling on it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 Wonderful, much appreciated. Could you double check if the part about " Wolfe stated that entries on black or gay science-fiction authors were still lacking" (note I've added the links, feel free to remove if you think they are wrong) refers to the black and LGBT authors of SF, or authors of black and LGBT-themed SF?

I also noticed the sentence "The 3rd edition received the Hugo Award for Best Related Work in 2012" in 3rd edition History section. First, it's the only award we mention in text in that section. If we mention it, we should mention other awards too. It is also debatable whether these mentions belong in history or reception. Thoughts? Remove the one award from text, or mention all of them - and if so, in history or in reception?

After that, do you think we could jointly renominate it for a GAN? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus Wolfe states that "It's still very difficult to track down information on gay or black sf writers, however; as a group, the latter are confined to a wide-ranging essay on politics and the former are hardly visible at all." It seems to be referring to black and LGBT authors rather than authors of works featuring them. Thus not sure if the links are applicable since they're focusing on their focus in the literature rather than as writers? If better links exist it might be worth swapping over.

I would remove the 3rd edition sentence you mentioned; honestly thought I'd removed it last night. I've removed it and shifted the bit about the authors' word count up to the "contents" section. I feel the award is covered fine as is in the awards section. Also, side note, but do double check Kelleghan's citation in the CD-ROM section; I believe I fixed her citation (Which was previously Wolfe's) but do check if I missed anything there or with a missing field.

I did a little bit of editing on the lead section to adjust the reception summarization slightly, but otherwise I believe it should be fine bar some minor things I may have missed. For now I think it should be good to go for a GAN once the few things above are dealt with; I'd be happy to act as co-nom with you on this as well if you would like. Let me know when you nominate it and I'll tag myself as a co-nom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:08, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 Thank you. As I see no other issues, I am GANing this now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus I have just added myself as co-nom, assuming that is alright. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:32, 16 August 2026 (UTC)