Talk:Extinction (Star Trek: Enterprise)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 09:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You'll get the review in a day or two. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status – Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion

The first look gives me an impression of a good article itself. Well written with good focus. Some points to be regarded are:

• The first three paragraphs of production section draws heavily from cite 2 which ought to be replaced. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is (and generally with Enterprise episodes) is that the production information is very limited - so I would suspect that cite 2 is the only production information available on the episode, anywhere. There was never a production related book released for the series (not even an e-book!) with the exception of some production info on the first few episodes of the first season at the back of the novelization of "Broken Bow". So the majority of information on the production of Enterprise is effectively mined from old versions of the official Star Trek website. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know whether a reference for the next episode will do any good or not. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't previously included it in order articles. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• A breakdown of lead section into three paragraphs will be better. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've broken it into three paragraphs. I've previously used that as my standard, but was trying out a two paragraph format instead. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Result

The article have passed the review. All looks fine and properly fitted. Cites are of no great problem and GA standard is achieved. Though it was a quick review, I feel that all is fine with the article. A better cited article is expected on the future, but for now, it's ready to roll out. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 18:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)