Talk:Gene Roddenberry/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 18:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll field this one, if I may. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• The article appears to be properly sourced. It does, however rely fairly heavily on Alexander's biography; that won't affect it at this stage although it would be worth considering supplementing Alexander with Engels and Van Hise in much of the article if taking it forward. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Alexander biography goes into a great deal more detail than the other two, while Engels is pretty good for criticism. I don't rate the Van Hise book too much, but I included some references to it simply to try to break up the Alexander book a bit. Miyagawa (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• This could do with a Peer Review to focus on prose issues. For instance, in the lede there are a few fairly repetitive passages. "Later he followed in his father's footsteps and joined the Los Angeles Police Department and also began to focus on writing scripts for television" over-uses "and", while "However, the syndication of Star Trek led to its growing popularity, which in turn led to Star Trek feature films" over-uses "led". There are a few places where commas are needed. I'd advice having a close read through the prose to remove any duplicate words and ensuring that the punctuation is correct. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've fixed those highlighted points - I did have the article go through an edit by the Guild of Copyeditors back in December. Miyagawa (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "a thirteenth film is scheduled to be released in 2016, Star Trek's fiftieth anniversary" might be WP:Recentism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed that line. Miyagawa (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Eileen is mentioned in the article prior to being properly introduced in the "Personal life" section. I would recommend adding mention of Rodenberry's magic at the chronologically appropriate juncture of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Done - I knew what you meant. Miyagawa (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Isaac Asimov is mentioned, but no explanation is given as to who he is. Many readers may be unfamiliar with this, so it might be worth saying "science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov" or something like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Added as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of "1970s projects", Star Trek is referred to as The Original Series out of the blue. Given that this latter term wasn't introduced until later, and it hasn't been explained in the article, it should probably be changed at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed that mention of The Original Series there as well as under awards. Miyagawa (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• "was released as a television movie." Uncited. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• D.C. Fontana is linked to twice. (As are Nichelle Nichols and Majel Barrett). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I ran the checker and found a few more - they should all be tidied up now. Miyagawa (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• The word "Klingon" is introduced to the prose with no explanation of who they are; a link and a brief reference to "Klingon, an alien race" or something like that, would deal with this problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've re-phrased that line to include something similar. Miyagawa (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• "creating Star Trek: The Next Generation". Specify what this is; readers may be unfamiliar whether this is a film, a television series, or whatever else. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That's great Miyagawa. Thanks for your work on the article. I'm happy to pass this now, although would recommend giving it a Peer Review to focus on the prose before taking it to FAC. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added that missing Spectre cite as well now. Miyagawa (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)