Talk:A Night in Sickbay/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this one. Initial comments will be posted within the next 24 hours. --1ST7 (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I did some minor copyediting; I hope you don't mind. Here's the review:

1. Well-written

   A. Prose: the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   • Bakula also explained in an interview with the website TrekWeb that the episode had Porthos featured as a background character throughout and that it was about Archer having to spend a night in sickbay with Phlox, "We find out a lot of stuff about [Phlox] that we may not have wanted to know; like what he does when he's in his off hours… he has things to cut and trim!" This phrase is a little awkward.

   • I've changed it to: "Bakula also explained in an interview with the website TrekWeb that the episode featured Archer's dog Porthos as a background character and it was also about Archer spending a night in sickbay with Phlox. He said that this meant that the viewer will "find out a lot of stuff about [Phlox] that we may not have wanted to know; like what he does when he's in his off hours... he has things to cut and trim!"" Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

   • In order to prepare for the scene where Porthos leaps out of an immersion tank and into Archer's arms, Rowe had a mock-up created so he could practice it with Breezy, he said that "By the time we went into it on that one day to prep on set with Scott, she was jumping out of it into my arms, but I had to make sure that she's going to jump out and do it into Scott's arms." This is a run-on sentence.

   • I've split it into two sentences - with the second starting at "He said that..." Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

   • The review by "Herc" for the website Ain't It Cool News, said that the it was good to find out how Porthos got his name, and the sexual tension between Archer and T'Pol. This phrase is also awkward.

   • I thought that breaking it into two sentences didn't improve it, so I've reworded it and fixed the tense issue. Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

   • He felt that he made a mockery out of the characters and that some of the situations were just ridiculous. Who made a mockery out of the characters?

   • Yep, that phrasing was rubbish! I've checked the source once again and reworded it to: "He felt that the episode made a mockery out of the characters and that some of the situations they were placed in were just ridiculous." Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

   • The lead is slightly confusing. Please take the "Breezy" parentheses out of Captain Jonathan Archer's (Scott Bakula) dog Porthos (Breezy) and just explain in the next paragraph that the dog was portrayed mainly by a Beagle named Breezy.

   • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   • One issue with WP:Words to Watch: S.F. Debris pointed out the simple logic...

   • I've removed that paragraph per note above. Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   • "TrekWeb" appears to be a fan site. Can you get a better source to cover that information?

   • TrekWeb is a fan site. But it is one of only four fansites which are linked to from the official Star Trek website, and due to the involvement with the cast and crew of the various series, the project considers them to be a reliable source (Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/Sources). Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

   • Please add a citation for the ratings figures in the latter half of the second paragraph of "Reception and home media release".

   • I've removed the second paragraph - it was added after the GA nomination by an IP user. There was a cite in the middle of it, but it was to a source I wouldn't consider reliable. Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage:

   • Article is focused and appears to cover all of the main aspects of the topic.

4. Neutral:
5. Stable:

   • No edit wars, etc.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

I'm going to place this article on hold for a week to give you time to address these issues. Thanks for your work on this article! --1ST7 (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

All of the changes are good. The article now looks ready for promotion, so I'm going to pass it. Congratulations, and thanks again for your work on it. --1ST7 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)