Talk:The Council (Star Trek: Enterprise)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the episode coverage task force.
 
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Seriously?[edit]

I enter "The Council" thinking that it would take me to either the European Council, or the Council of European Affairs, and instead I end up on a Star Trek episode. Wikipedia has officially been conquered by dorks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.209.228 (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say this has been rectified. The Council now leads to a dab page. Miyagawa (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Thanks as always for all your work on these! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, on first pass, this looks solid and probably ready to pass. I've done some copyediting as I went (revert any you disagree with, of course), but the prose is clear, the referencing looks good, and the discussion seems to cover the main aspects. It's a little short on reviews but I understand that there's probably not many available from worthwhile sources. Will do the checklist now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
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. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
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 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 images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA