Talk:Past Prologue/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 16:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Second on my "to review" list. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 16:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• "prolific Star Trek director" why is this necessary info in the lead?
• "go on to" unnecessary
• Should be "by critics" not by "the critics"
• Comma after Garak in that sentence
• Remove "subsequently"
• "Among his previous work, he had" simpler to say "he had previously"
• You link Peter Allan Fields twice in Production.
• Who "also praised the writing"? Kolbe or Robinson?
• Stating that something is "all about subtext" feels a little strange to me, and unless it's a direct quote, I would find some other way to phrase it.
• Are there any other reviews of the episode from some of your usual Star Trek sites? (i.e. Jammer's Reviews)
• All your refs are good.

@Miyagawa: Wonderful work on this article! Just a few points and then I can pass. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 00:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Johanna: Thanks for the review. I've covered all the changes. Regarding the reviews - while the production information on DS9 is a lot better than most of TNG, I actually have a specific book just of reviews for TNG, so that'll add a reliable review. For DS9, I'm kinda stuck with what is avaliable on the web, and unlike Voyager or Enterprise there isn't much point trying to get anything out of archive.org as it'll predate their listings. I did try newspapers.com but that just had TV listings for this episode, but sometimes you never know with that as I did find some reviews of "Space Seed" when putting that through FA. Miyagawa (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: Great! Pass. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: