Talk:United (Star Trek: Enterprise)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 01:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Miyagawa: I have yet to review an article about Enterprise so here it goes lol. I should have my comments up soon. Aoba47 (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox[edit]

  • For the first sentence, I would add (and the show’s 89th episode overall.) rather than just using the comma. This is just a suggestion, but I think it would improve it.
  • Change “broadcast” to “broadcasted”
  • You do not need to repeat episode title as much in the first paragraph.
  • I've removed one instance of it, but kept it in for the sentence following mentions of other episodes to keep it clear which episode it was talking about. Miyagawa (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change “the action of the Andorians” to “the Andorians’ actions” just to be more direct. It seems like a small change, but I think it will make the sentence flow a little better.

Plot[edit]

  • There are a couple of inconsistencies between American and British spelling, such as a majority of the article is written with British spelling but you include the American spelling of “realizes”.
  • That's a native British speller poorly attempting to write in American English I'm afraid. Miyagawa (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say “as a flagship” instead of “as flagship”
  • Remove the comma after crossfire and remove now
  • Remove the dash in the final sentence as it is unnecessary.

Production[edit]

  • Change “November 11, 2003 and November 19” to “November 11 and November 19, 2003,”
  • Change the second to last sentence of the second paragraph to the following to be more direct: (In the episode, the Remans made their television debut as they only previously appeared in the film Star Trek: Nemesis.) Keep the links.
  • I haven't used your exact wording, but I've made it more direct. Miyagawa (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would break up the last sentence of the last paragraph into two sentences as it reads somewhat awkwardly and appears more like a run-on sentence.

Reception and home media release[edit]

  • I would change the “This” in the second sentence of the second paragraph to “The moment”
  • Overall, this section is very strong so very good with all the research put into it and the article overall.

References[edit]

  • Great references! I appreciate that you have archived the links as well.

Final comments[edit]

  • @Miyagawa: Overall, this article is very strong and my comments are more detail-oriented and picking apart minor aspects. Once my comments are addressed, this should be an easy and quick pass.
  • @Aoba47: Thanks for reviewing as always! Once "Storm Front" has gone through the GAN process, then I'll be ready to nominate the fourth season of Enterprise to become the project's first Good Topic. Miyagawa (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Miyagawa: I am glad that I could help in some way. Great job with the article.  Pass
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: