Talk:Tapestry (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

GA Failure

• No Fair Use Rationales
• No references

• Please see WP:CITE and WP:FAIR, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Picard's heart

I haven't seen this episode for a while so my memory may be off but doesn't Q give Picard a real heart upon the return to the "correct" timeline? I am almost sure that happened, which is one of the reason's this episode sticks in my mind. It shows Q truly loves Picard as a friend. And I also distinctly remember Picard commenting to the effect that if what he remembers actually transpired, he is in debt to Q. Billywhack 12:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Picards Heart They don't quite say in the episode if he got the real one or he just didn't die. But indeed he did bring him back to the same point where he originally did die. This is a great episode though and I agree Q secretly wants to be friends with "Mon Capitan" Jtflood1976 (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

One of two things happened, when Picard rejoins the timeline, and survives the attack, either Q has made his artificial heart work well enough for Dr. Crusher to stabilize him (which at the beginning of the episode wouldn't have worked), or Q let Picard live risk taking lifestyle that he embraced, then gave him an organic heart at the last moment, when he needed it. Fanon seems to assume the latter happened, so that Picard can survive being turned to a pre-teen in the episode Rascals. The actual episode's dialog remains ambiguous. 64.252.69.67 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Cut off summary

Why does the plot summary begin mid-thought without explaining the incident that begins the episode? It's as if the opening paragraph was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnanninga (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tapestry (Star Trek: The Next Generation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Second on my "to review" list. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 00:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I am guessing that this was not your upload, but I would remove that non-free file unless you can tell me why it's necessary.

• I've removed it - I got it into my head that there was more discussion on that scene. Miyagawa (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Can you add running time to the infobox?

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is not a necessity, but I would replace the em dashes in the guest actors part with "as"

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Nielsen ratings of 13.8 percent were received..." The phrasing of this sentence is rather poor.

• I've switched it around. Miyagawa (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I find "writing and premise" to be a bit redundant, as the premise is included in the writing process.

• I've dropped the "premise" bit. Miyagawa (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• It's a bit strange to go from the first sentence to "Moore's original premise" which makes it sound like the two are entirely different.

• I've changed it from "original premise" to "plan" in order to avoid making it sound like the first sentence was separate. Miyagawa (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• "it had to be trimmed" What had to be cut down, and why?

• I've split that rather long sentence into two to avoid a run on sentence following the further explanation added. Miyagawa (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Copyedit the second paragraph of "writing"

• I've overhauled it. Miyagawa (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Producer Jeri Taylor" Be more specific about the "it" later in the sentence.

• Changed to "similarity". Miyagawa (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I would put all the stuff about Brandy in the same paragraph.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• "get together" is very informal.

• I've redrafted to get around it. Miyagawa (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• "However this scene did feature" rephrase

• Managed to drop the "However". I use too many of those. Miyagawa (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• What members of the crew made this comparison.

• Added - both redlinks atm, but I'll get around to those at some point. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I know what you mean, but say something different than "white scenes"

• I've made it more descriptive now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• "could be perceived like that" rephrase

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Can you put a critical consensus at the top of the "critical reception" section?

• Done. I managed to avoid saying "overwhelmingly positive" though. :) Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• It was not immediately clear to me what DeCandido novel had to do with the episode until the next sentence, so could you condense that portion into one sentence?

• I've flipped it around so that the "Tapestry" reference comes first. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why is "The Morton Report" reliable?

• It was created by Eric Olsen and Andrew Morton (the former still acting as editor). Therefore it has the required editorial oversight. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: That's all I have. I will definitely pass after these are cleared up. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 19:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Johanna: I think that was everything. Let me know if there's anything else. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: Wonderful. Pass. If you plan on taking this to FA (which I would recommend) I would just have a copyedit (GOCE or self) done beforehand. Nice work! Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 21:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Johanna: Thanks for the review - it'll be good to get a TNG episode to FA to go with the TOS and Enterprise eps (and hopefully the DS9 one shortly). Miyagawa (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)