Talk:When the Bough Breaks (Star Trek: The Next Generation)/GA1

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 04:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit

Currently (April 10, 2017) the first line says it is the 16th episode. But I think it is the 17th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.106.177 (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved

Plot

edit
  Resolved
  • Copyedits by reviewer. OK.

Production

edit
  Resolved
  • Hannah Louise Shearer pitched the episode to D.C. Fontana, as a potential use of the families seen on board the Enterprise.
    • Remember, each section should stand on its own; don't assume that the reader already knows who Shearer and Fontana are. Perhaps you could preface their names with their occupation (i.e. "writer", etc.) Also, the wording "potential use of the families seen on board the Enterprise" isn't very clear. I think you are trying to say that Shearer wanted to focus on an episode about the families, but it would also help to explain why (if it is mentioned). This isn't a big deal, but if there is something important in the sources here please add it. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • I've expanded it out. I added the series bible as a source and referred to that as the family element is mentioned in it. I went back and double checked the previously used source and expanded it. Miyagawa (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • Sorry, it still doesn't read very well. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
          • I've found an additional problem. Combining the source about families with the source in the series bible borders on original research. Unless this fact is mentioned in a source (any source) about this episode (this topic) and the series bible, it is problematic. I have no objection to including it in a footnote, but in the main text we need to rely solely on sources about this subject. Personally, I find this very interesting, and I think it should be said, but you need to be very careful to only write from sources about the episode. Mentioning the fact that there was a change in focus to families in the two series is difficult without a source about this episode. Viriditas (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
            • I've switched out the bible bit to a note rather than in the main body of the article rather than lose it entirely. I've also added the DeCandido review in as an additional cite as he also says that the families were mentioned in the pilot but didn't really appear until this episode. Miyagawa (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
              • It wasn't very clear, so I quoted the exact passages from the bible that explicitly note this change. Viriditas (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
                • Note, I had to go back and look a the sources. I discovered that the content was different from in the original sources so I changed the wording to best reflect the sources in use and I moved the sources appropriately to support the correct content. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Shearer had also discussed the idea with series creator Gene Roddenberry about the story which would show "a society that had lost its humanity in favor of technology".
  • Visual effects supervisor Robert Legato
  • This was built as it was cheaper than creating the same effect with a series of matte paintings, and Legato estimated that it had cost around $3,000 to produce.
  • The score for the episode was created by Ron Jones, who had sought to take a simple approach to the music with a lilting theme but with the singing replaced with a piano or flute.
  • This theme was meant to represent the children on board the Enterprise and first featured in the opening cue, "Escape From Calculus".
  • Electronic music was used to represent the technology of Aldea across several pieces, including "Scanning for Children" and "Power Source".

Reception and home media release

edit
  Resolved

Criteria

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    Prose needs cleanup.
    Lead section prose OK
    Plot OK
    Production OK
    Reception and home media release OK
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
    See note about production
    Footnote OK
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    The title of this episode is a reference to the nursery rhyme, "Rock-a-bye Baby". Are there any citations that mention this obvious fact or discuss the allusion? Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
    This had been included in the article previously, but I couldn't cite it and so removed it. Unfortunately the TNG stuff just isn't as detailed as the DS9 companion which contains that sort of level of detail on every episode. (it was written as the series progressed, whereas the TNG companion was written in the later seasons). Miyagawa (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
    Good work. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Mostly simple prose issues at this point.
    All issues have been addressed. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply