Talk:Blood rain/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Review begun. Will get back to you tomorrow. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Busy day at work, but I didn't forget you. Need 24 more hours. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 12:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

until review comments (below) are addressed. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

To start with, the first sentence of the lede "Blood rain is a phenomenon where blood appears to fall from the sky in the form of rain." I think needs to be reworked a bit. Because we all know it the natural phenomena isn't blood, yet as a literary device it may be, so something like "Blood rain is a phenomenon where a substance which is perceived to be blood falls from the sky in the form of rain. In literature, blood rain may refer to actual blood raining from the sky."

Regarding the organization of information in the article, this article is a mixture of scientific explanation, history, and literary imaginings, and those things need to be well separated. I would recommend the article's sections be organized like this:

• Occurrences
  • Literary Accounts
  • Historical Accounts
• Characteristics
• Explanations
  • Historical Explanations (the information about prior explanations, like the "evaporated blood" theory)
  • Possible Scientific Explanations

Your references need to be standardized as well, not in two different styles of referencing (referring to McCafferty). That's a start. Hope this helps. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not having responded earlier, I must have missed this on my watchlist. The citations have been standardised. The lead needed expanding, so I've added to it. I tried to keep the first sentence from being wordy, but hopefully the first paragraph shows that in literature the rain could actually be blood, and that in the medieval period and earlier people thought it was.

Regarding the organisation of the article, I'm not convinced that restructuring is necessary. There is some overlap between the two main sections, but that is because the history of the phenomenon and its explanation are linked. The explanation details the developing understanding of blood rain, from literal interpretations that it was blood – perhaps caused by gods – through to the modern interpretation that there are several causes, ie: dust and microscopic organisms. The history and use in literature section explains how the phenomenon has been recorded, how it has occurred, and how this has changed over time. To fully explain this, it has been necessary to introduce some of the explanations which are better explained later. Otherwise the change from medieval mysticism to a modern scientific approach is unexplained. Separating the literary from the historic instances is nigh on impossible, hence they are dealt together. For instance, many of the early rains may have been invented by authors to give a sense of impending doom, foreshadowing events, however who is to say that blood coloured rain didn't actually fall and that with hindsight chroniclers interpreted it as a sign? It seems likely that both historic and literary rains went hand in hand early on, and it is only with a modern understanding of the phenomenon that it falls out of use as an omen in literature. For the most part, the sources discussing blood rain have hesitated to draw black and white distinctions between the two.

As for a characteristics section, I like the idea, but don't think there's enough information to justify one. Basically, it boils down to three main characteristics: it's red, usually covers a small area, although the time is lasts is variable. This is covered in the explanation section, but I've included more details in the lead to make it more prominent. Nev1 (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. If you prefer a different structure (or the current structure), that's okay, but the article is confusing to me because I have a hard time separating the scientific accounts from the literary/figurative accounts, because they are mixed together. You mention that some of the literary accounts may be based on actual phenomena, and that's okay, but it is equally possible that the writers meant that literal blood fell from the sky, which is why I think they need to be clearly separated into their own sections (fine to say that the literary accounts may be based on actual phenomena). Is there some way you can clearly delineate the two, and break that huge paragraph up a little? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 07:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful, as to these people the rain wasn't simply red, it was blood, whether they made up the event or it was historical. Nev1 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Review Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

No improvements since April 12. Nom states unable to make improvements.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The article's current structure is confusing. See GA review comments for details.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Readers need to be able to easily delineate between actual occurrences from fantastic mentions in literature.