Talk:Star Trek: The Next Generation season 2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Miyagawa, I'll be glad to take this one, too. Comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, once this review is completed I'll roll the changes out to the season 3 article which is newer but still needs the formatting of the episodes to be sorted out. (And it'll probably cause me to keep up with the TNG seasons as they get released on Blu Ray as it usually means that the official ST site puts out some additional features specific to that season. Miyagawa (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a few initial comments; I haven't made it any further than the lead yet. More this afternoon, hopefully. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• "his lawyer" -- slightly ambiguous--is this Roddenberry's lawyer?

• That's right - I've redrafted - "with Gene Roddenberry and Leonard Maizlish, Roddenberry's lawyer". Miyagawa (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• "the show rose throughout " --this discussion of the rise and fall of the ratings is hard to follow. How did it peak with Measure of a Man in the middle of the season if the ratings rose steadily throughout the season?

• I meant in show ranking - but it wasn't clear, so I've dropped "rose throughout". Miyagawa (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, great. Here's some more for you. I've made some changes as I went (please doublecheck). In a few places I've had trouble untangling the prose, and made notes below asking for clarification. Let me know your thoughts, and thanks again for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Hurley had objected to the scenes seen in the first season episode "Conspiracy" -- "the scenes" makes it sound like we should be aware of specific scenes. Is it possible to elaborate slightly here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've elaborated. To be honest, they were both quite possessive of their intellectual properties. Hurley created the Borg, Torme created Dixon Hill. The Borg were originally insects, and Conspiracy was a precursor to their appearance - so I imagine that when Torme re-wrote Conspiracy and added those scenes with the chest exploding at the end it resulted in Hurley getting quite pissed off. Then he kept massively re-writing Torme's work, first with "The Royale" and then with "Manhunt" - which was the final straw as it was Dixon Hill. I have to get around to writing Hurley's article but I'm slightly daunted by the prospect of keeping it a balanced BIO article due to the volume of issues he seemed to create in early TNG. Miyagawa (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• ", something credited to her interactions with Hurley" -- the passive voice here is a little confusing.

• Changed to "due to differences". Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• " Roddenberry gave him his notes, he" -- pronouns seem to be getting very confused here. Is the "him" Wright, "his" Roddeberry, and "he" Wright again?

• I've restructured that entire sentence. It now reads "Roddenberry gave Wright a number notes on the script, who accidentally handed over notes on the script to Gerrold which were written by Roddenberry's lawyer, Leonard Maizlish." Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• "However, even in the official autobiography of Gene Roddenberry, David M. Alexander refers to Maizlish as "Roddenberry’s dark presence"." -- I'd suggest cutting this sentence. First of all, this bit doesn't seem to be in the autobiography, but was said in conversation by the biographer. (Also, "autobiography" is written by the subject himself; if Alexander wrote it, it's just a biography.) Second, I'm not quite sure it belongs. it's a bit of a side note even in the Salon article, put in parentheticals, and doesn't flow logically here; Alexander's comment doesn't really contradict Over's story. What would you say to cutting it? The Gerrold quotation alone seems enough to establish that Maizlish was probably a horrifically bad person.

• That's no problem, I've cut it. Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Modifications were made to the bridge set resign various elements " -- I'm not clear what "resign" means here--is this a garbled form of "redesign"?

• In fact, it should have been "to redesign" - I guess my fingers were working faster than my brain there. Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• "so that La Forge, in his new role as Chief Engineer" -- this is the first time Geordi's been mentioned in the article, so you should presumably give full name and actor name (also to make it clear the person changing roles is the character, not the actor)

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• "She had also appeared in a pilot for a Roddenberry-led pilot" -- should the second pilot be "series"?

• It probably should be - but instead I've removed "pilot for a" so that it reads simply "a Roddenberry-led pilot" as Planet Earth wasn't picked up as a series. Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• "She said that "People have tried to create" -- is the she here Muldaur, I'm assuming?

• Yep, I've clarified it - I can see how it could have been read as McFadden instead. Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• "as they felt that a movie star such as Goldberg would want to appear in Star Trek'" -- should this be "would not want to appear?

• I've inserted a the "not" into the sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• "and ignored the calls from her agent, until she called them personally" -- this confuses me a bit. So did she have Levar speak to them, or call them herself? This seems like two versions, but I may just not be understanding how they connect.

• I've made a couple of copy edits to clarify - I think the initial approach was via Burton. Then there seems to have been a bit of a mix up with the producers simply not taking Goldberg's agent's calls because they may not have believed it was really Goldberg's agent. Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• "to gain a recurring role from season three" -- should this be "season two"? I'm confused by the phrase.

• I've worked that into the following couple of sentences about O'Reilly. It certainly wasn't a good way to open up that bit of information. Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• "who worked to James" -- this confuses me too.-- Khazar2 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Changed to "who was supervised James in his new role". Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• "in its timeslots" -- is it correct that the series had multiple timeslots this season, and attained third-place in both? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, should be "timeslot" (no "s" - as with the mention in the lead). The series was syndicated, but with a set timeslot - some affiliates pre-empted their normal programming to show it, which they wouldn't have needed to do if they could have broadcast it at any time. Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• "These were the only Emmys won by the series for season two, having been nominated for eight awards. " -- this phrasing is a bit confusing. Was it nominated for three or eight awards? Or was it nominated eight times in three categories? If the latter, maybe that could be clearer up front.

• I've redrafted that part of the section. Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not an action point, but it's pretty hilarious that they included a Reading Rainbow segment on the Blu-ray. When I was five, Reading Rainbow was just about my favorite thing in the world. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm British so I've never seen an episode! We had a series called Jackanory, but that was more reading to children than actually about reading books. Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources and comprehensiveness look good, and the article is stable; I'll do checks for accuracy and plagiarism once the above points are addressed. Thanks again, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• One query - when I did the season three article I cited the home media release template (the details/features and then the release dates individually). I've realised that I haven't done that here - should I, or are the features inherently cited by being physically on the release (much in the same way that a plot is inherently cited by the television episode). I guess the answer could be - if in doubt, cite it, but I just wanted to check before I did. Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the sourcing as it looks now. This material doesn't fall under the type of claim that needs citation per criterion 2b in any case. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Great, thanks. My stepson's staying with us this weekend but I'll be back "on duty" Tuesday to take a more detailed look at the above and hopefully finish this off. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. 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:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. 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:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA