Talk:The Host (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

References to homosexuality

I feel that all references to homosexuality in the article are too presuming. Dr. Crusher's commentary (her opinions, and what she says about human love) is broader than this synopsis (which seems to try to turn up-for-interpretation/open-ended musings on the limitations of human love into a social commentary about sexual orientation). A big theme of this episode is her affection for Odan eclipsing the current host body, so trying to make it about penises and vaginas at the end of the day is kind of debasing. She gives valid reasons to Odan at the end of the episode, none of which are "I'm not into vaginas!".

Untitled

The last paragraph seems analytical and subjective.

Just to note as this comment is undated, this relates to a version of the article from 2007. Miyagawa (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Host (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) 21:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Second on my "to review" list. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 21:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Should probably be "and the 98th episode overall"

• Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• "some critics saying that the reaction" Specify which critic

• Added that it was Handlen from the A.V. Club. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The shoot was complicated as Gates McFadden was seven months pregnant" It's up to you, but I would prefer a different wording: "The filming of Gates McFadden's scenes was complicated by the fact that she was seven months pregnant at the time..."

• Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Who is Jonathan Frakes?

• He was mentioned in the plot section, but in order to make it easier for the reader, I've added a mention about who he was. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Source for Ronald D. Moore's statement, as it is a separate entity than the next, referenced sentence.

• Done. It was the same reference (same page). Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• In "Heroes and Demons", so placed comments like Braga's in the Reception section. I think it could go either way, but at least choose one and stick to it.

• Well with "Heroes and Demons" I added an additional section because of the volume of them. Normally I just slot them in the production section, but that Voyager episode was a bit unusual as I don't normally have direct access to the magazine specifically about the episode (I picked up a few early Voyager magazines in an eBay auction). Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• To me, that picture of Hawking is a bit of a strange one because of the prominence of the text above him. There are a lot of other pictures, so I would recommend you choose one of those.

• I've swapped it out. I'd specifically chosen that one because he was using the Star Trek quote in a presentation which I thought was cool, but looking at it again it actually looks like someone has just photoshopped some text onto the image. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Following the introduction of the Trill in this episode..." This sentence structure is a little convoluted to me, and I feel as though the fact of their introduction has already been established. I would prefer simply "the Trill later recurred..."

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• I would remove the sentence beginning "it was changed to a series of markings", as it focuses solely on the production of an episode of Deep Space Nine and thus is not relevant to this article.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• "despite the ratings received placing it" once again, the wording could be better. I would write "despite the ratings being"

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's too informal to refer to something as the "gayest" episode

• That should have been in quotations (it is now), as it isn't a word I would use to describe something but was in the title of that actual article. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• For the A.V. Club review, I would prefer you to place the letter grade at the top of the discussion of the review.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Refs are once again good.

@Miyagawa: Very nice work once again! You churn out these articles at a very rapid rate. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 22:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Johanna: Thanks for the review. I often go in a bit of stops and starts. "Heroes and Demons" for example was mostly written several months ago and then I got distracted by another article (I forget which) before I finished it and I only rediscovered the work recently. I'm kinda scatter gun in my approach to these articles simply because there are so many of them! This one for example was only worked up because "Rejoined" is going through the Featured Article nomination process at the moment, and some of the points in that article points back to this one (that in turn was only worked up to GA originally because there was a push to improve LGBT articles at the time). Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: There are a lot of articles! I'm surprised that you've had the will to even tackle the ones you have, which were pretty much WP:ALLPLOT before you got to them. Luckily for me, there are a lot fewer Veronica Mars articles to recreate and maintain. :) Anyways, I am satisfied with your changes to the article and can now Pass. Good work! Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 22:56, 23 January 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: