Talk:The War of the Worlds

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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

General comments

• 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.

Lead

• 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.

Plot

• 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.

Style

• 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.

Scientific setting

• 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.

Physical location

• 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.

Cultural setting

• 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.

Publication

• 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?

Reception

• 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?

Relation to invasion literature

• 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.

Scientific predictions and accuracy

• 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.

Interpretations

• 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.

Influences

• 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.

Adaptations

• 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.

Summary

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)

@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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1901

Where in the novel does the date 1901 occour? Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

All we know is it is set in the early 20thC, no even what decade. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree this is the place we should have the discussion. I'm going to link to the conversation started at User talk:Slatersteven/Archive 13#War of the worlds. BusterD (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's not completely accurate. It can be worked out with a modicum of accuracy:

During the opposition of 1894 a great light was seen on the illuminated part of the disk, first at the Lick Observatory, then by Perrotin of Nice, and then by other observers. English readers heard of it first in the issue of Nature dated August 2. I am inclined to think that this blaze may have been the casting of the huge gun, in the vast pit sunk into their planet, from which their shots were fired at us. Peculiar markings, as yet unexplained, were seen near the site of that outbreak during the next two oppositions.

and

The storm burst upon us six years ago now. As Mars approached opposition, Lavelle of Java set the wires of the astronomical exchange palpitating with the amazing intelligence of a huge outbreak of incandescent gas upon the planet.

Oppositions of Mars happen every 15 (or 17) years, so to keep things simple, 1894+45+6=1945, which is the stated date of 1896 plus three oppositions, plus the "six years ago" statement. The author's testimony was written around 1945, but the events happened in 1939. All approximate of course.

Is this original research? I don't think adding up a couple of dates quoted in the text itself counts as OR, but I'm not fussy about adding it in. Rather I'd be tempted to use it as reason to remove the "1901" claim that currently sits - and definitely doesn't appear in the text. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

1895 is ion the novel, years ago is not, it may have been 1900, or 1906 or 1955. But yes this is my point, it is not 19800 or 1901, we can't be sure its 1939, or even 1955. At best we can say "early 20thC". Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, can you clarify the above text? I'm guessing you typed in a hurry, but I can't follow it. For example, all the above I quoted is in the novel, including the six years ago now, as are the oppositions, which even back in the 19th century were known, and their durations planned. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

But "6 years ago now", is not a date, all we know is that the invasion occurred 6 years before the narrative was written, and that it occurred sometime around an opposition. so 1909 or 1924 or 1939 or 1954, but not 1900 or 1901. So the best we can say is "early 20th C". Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Your given dates for Mars oppositions are incorrect though. They occur much more frequently than that (about every 2 years). The British Astronomical society has a web page with observation reports from every Mars opposition from 1892 onwards - including the 1894, 1896 and 1899 oppositions described in Wells' book. 81.145.236.58 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Note the actual dates are 1901 · 1911 · 1920 · 1928 · 1937 · 1946 · 1956 [[1]] but Wells may not have been aware of that but 1901 might well have been a possible date. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what the actual dates are, the novel states the opposition happened in 1894. Additionally it states that two oppositions have occurred since then, and it's during the third that the actual invasion begins. These are explicitly stated in the text - as I quoted above. Anyway, the upshot is that 1901 is flat out wrong. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Good point, so the two must be 1901 and 1911, so the opposition (and yes this is still bit OR) is 1920. Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

To confuse the matter, there was no oposition in 1894, it was in 1892 [[2]], so Wells was not aiming for astronomical accuracy. He was not attempting prediction.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The above statement is incorrect. Dates for Mars oppositions around the time the book was published are as follows:

• October 1894
• December 1896
• January 1899
• February 1901

These are taken directly from the British Astronomical society website (https://britastro.org/section_information_/mars-section-overview/read-reports-on-past-oppositions-of-mars). Wells was scientifically trained and seems to have drawn on genuine astronomical observations and predicted event timings to help flesh out his book (even in the 1890s Mars opposition dates could be accurately predicted decades in advance). 81.145.236.58 (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Then we have a conflict between RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually we don't. I looked at the website you referenced and the 1901, 1911, 1920 etc dates you have cited are simply hyperlinks to the start date of the respective diagrams for each period shown below. For example in the 1901 diagram, there are actually 8 Earth/Mars oppositions starting on the 22nd Feb 1901, followed by 29 March 1903 etc - and ending the period on the 10th Feb 1910. The next diagram then starts from the 25 Nov 1911 opposition.

You have interpreted the hyperlinks themselves to be the dates of the opposition - rather than the dates within the diagrams when Earth and Mars are shown at close approach. The dates in the diagrams align with the dates I cited from the British astronomical society. There is no conflict, both of the sources you and I have cited are in agreement. 81.145.236.58 (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"The period from the 1892 opposition..." seems to me to say there was an opposition in 1892. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There was one in 1892. From your own link the first opposition shown in the 1800s diagram is given as 4th August 1892, followed by the 20 Oct 1894 (the opposition Wells cited in the book).

The 1892 opposition is also the first Earth/Mars opposition to be described in a report on the British Astronomical Society website I linked to:

https://britastro.org/section_information_/mars-section-overview/read-reports-on-past-oppositions-of-mars/the-opposition-of-mars-1892

Like I said - your source and my source agree, there is no conflict 81.145.236.58 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

We are both blugdeoning, it is time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Why are we blugdeoning? We have independently posted different citations that both agree with the dates given in Wells' book. It seems pretty cut and dried.

The only thing we can't say with absolute certainty is that Wells was referring to the 1901 opposition when he stated "as Mars approached opposition" - however it seems unlikely that he would be so specific about the 1894, 1896 and 1899 oppositions occurring in sequence, then just randomly decide to skip one or more. It is reasonable to assume that the opposition Mars was "approaching" was the next in the sequence, since it would be consistent with the way he describes the previous 3.

I think one thing we can say with certainty is that the main narrative occurred after 1900 ("early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment").

We can split hairs all day about whether this was actually 1901, 1903, 1905, 1907 - depending on how many oppositions you think Wells may have just randomly left out, but the Feb 1901 opposition date seems to fit for me. It's narratively consistent and gives ~6 months travel time in order to land on Horsell common in the late spring/early summer which does not seem unreasonable. It is consistent with current travel time estimates for modern spacecraft (perhaps another fairly accurate scientific prediction of Wells). 81.145.236.58 (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That is wp:or we need RS to say it was set in 1901, thus we are just going around in circles. If " during the next two oppositions" are 1896 and 1899 and the invasion is set 6 years after the latter that means 1905, not 1901. If it means 6 years after the casting, that means 1900. We do not know what wells meant. This is why this needs fresh eyes. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

He doesn't say the invasion is set 6 years after the two oppositions - he is recounting his story 6 years after the events happened:

"The storm burst upon us six years ago now. As Mars approached opposition........."

It is a retrospective recounting of his story, a biography if you will. It was never intended or told as a contemporary account of events (hence why he was able to also document his brothers side of the story). 2A00:23C5:3508:4301:5526:4789:9CFE:ED01 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It's also why the narrator was able to write the epilogue - which is clearly set many years after the invasion after some sense of normality had returned - and recounts how the bodies of the martians were examined along with their technology - and how some of the specimens are displayed in the British museum.

Several oppositions have occurred since and the narrator fears a renewed attack as each one approaches - as evidenced by the line in the epilogue:

"At present the planet Mars is in conjunction, but with every return to opposition I, for one, anticipate a renewal of their adventure." 2A00:23C5:3508:4301:5526:4789:9CFE:ED01 (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Classic"

"The show uses a ground breaking interactive blend of virtual reality, volumetric holograms and live theatre to take visitors into the heart of this classic science fiction story like never before."

"The fighting machine (also known as a "Martian Tripod") is one of the fictional machines used by the Martians in H.G. Wells' 1898 classic science fiction novel The War of the Worlds."

Is it ok to call something a "classic" as a factual statement in an encyclopedia? Isn't it more of a subjective thing rather than saying "it is widely regarded as a classic"? Is it against NPOV? I'm asking out of curiosity. Dornwald (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say not. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven you mean it's not ok? Dornwald (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, maybe "Called classic", but not in our words. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Citation consistency

It seems that at least some of the citations are short-form, particularly in the lead. Since I'm excerpting the lead section for the First contact (science fiction) article, I've chosen to change the lead's citation style to be more consistent with both articles. At the moment, I have no intention of doing the same with the rest, as I am focusing on completing my work on the first contact article. Ships & Space_(Edits) 01:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)