42:
220:
I read the book and saw the film many years ago and it was a joy to encounter such a high quality article about this subject again. I rarely say this, but I will say it here: the intro section is a bit too long. I would recommend trimming it down to four paragraphs each of four or five sentences in
243:
The sections "Criticism of militarism" and "Allegations of fascism" are well cited and fleshed out. As well as "Utopianism" and "Race and gender". The mere existence to me of this detail level of research shows that the article is not overly promotional, nor overly critical, yet matter of fact and
231:
The article is meticulously cited throughout, with a notes and bibliography section. These don't need to be in the three level headers and can each just be their own two level headers.
221:
length, tops. Otherwise, the writing quality is quite good throughout, certainly more than good enough for good article quality for right now. Suggest you may wish to consult
47:
80:
250:
No instability for a few months. Just some minor IP edits to watch out for. Talk page doesn't have recent comments for a few years, no arguments there ongoing.
70:
126:
122:
52:
107:
261:
99:
222:
156:
210:
75:
237:
The article is tremendously thorough, I daresay probably one of the most thorough on a novel I have seen on
Knowledge.
225:
about the precise order of the sections, but the sections are all there and they are quite in-depth, very well done.
198:
115:
17:
260:
Very very very very very very well done. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it
186:
269:
171:
150:
264:. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.—
256:
Four images. Two fair use with good fair use rationales. Two free use with appropriate licensing.
92:
209:
status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 11, 2017, compares against the
182:
265:
167:
146:
206:
273:
190:
175:
160:
244:
academic in its detail to the references. It passes for NPOV.
134:
103:
205:
I am glad to report that this article nomination for
8:
30:
181:That you are willing, very glad, I am.
61:
33:
7:
166:This one, for review, I shall take.
24:
223:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Novels
1:
289:
241:4. Neutral point of view?:
274:16:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
211:six good article criteria
191:04:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
176:01:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
161:01:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
262:Good article reassessed
235:3. Broad in coverage?:
18:Talk:Starship Troopers
218:1. Well written?:
89:
88:
280:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
288:
287:
283:
282:
281:
279:
278:
277:
229:2. Verifiable?:
203:
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
286:
284:
258:
257:
251:
245:
238:
232:
226:
202:
195:
194:
193:
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
285:
276:
275:
271:
267:
263:
255:
252:
249:
246:
242:
239:
236:
233:
230:
227:
224:
219:
216:
215:
214:
212:
208:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
179:
178:
177:
173:
169:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
259:
253:
247:
240:
234:
228:
217:
207:good article
204:
199:good article
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
254:6. Images?:
197:Successful
104:visual edit
266:Sagecandor
248:5. Stable?
201:nomination
168:Sagecandor
147:Sagecandor
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
183:Vanamonde
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
157:contribs
76:Criteria
127:history
108:history
94:Article
136:Watch
16:<
270:talk
187:talk
172:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
272:)
213::
189:)
174:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
268:(
185:(
170:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.