From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sadads (talk · contribs) 21:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am going to do the GA review for this article. Within the next few days I am going to go through and do a detailed reading and review of the article. I usually write and review content about literature and fiction, not television, but I have done some work in television and am a big fan of star trek, so it should work out well. Sadads (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


1. Well written?:

Prose quality:  No pass
Manual of Style compliance:  Pass

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: Pass
Citations to reliable sources, where required: Pass
No original research: Working

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: No pass
Focused: Pass

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: Pass

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): Pass

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:  Pass

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Pass
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Pass


Pass or Fail:

General concerns[edit]

Throughout the article, you rely on various forms of the verbs "to be" and "to have" with the passive voice. These often make wordier sentences and can hurt the overall clarity of the information being communicated. I have begun working with some of this and will continue to do so as I review the article, but generally, it can be easier for the author to fix the meaning. Make sure that the changes I make are reasonable, and I would suggest using the search function to find various forms of the verbs such as "is", "was", etc. to focus directly on those, Sadads (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I try to balance wordiness versus using the same verbs and phrases over and over again, and I know I tend to write in the passive voice if I'm not being careful. Thank you for punching up the wording. I'll try to take a look at it soon and see what I can do. — fourthords | =Λ= | 03:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I am a freshman writing teacher in my day job, so its something I constantly notice when I am reading written work :P Use the examples that I provided in those initial edits to try doing some of your own revisions, Sadads (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Specific concerns[edit]

In this section I will ask specific concerns about phrasing, language or details that don't make 100% sense.

  • "Director Winrich Kolbe was satisfied but disappointed in the end product." - this is way too vague: what created the contradiction?
    Kolbe was satisfied with what he'd managed to do in the episode, but disappointed he couldn't do more. This is mainly a reference to the first paragraph of the "Production" section. — fourthords | =Λ= | 03:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    Either expand the level of detail in the lead, or rephrase so that the final verdict of Kolbe's sense of the show comes through, Sadads (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    I expanded the detail in the lede a little bit. I don't want to get too much into it because then I'll just duplicate what's in the reception section. — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Throughout the episode, a concern over shipboard fraternization arises. After Captain Janeway and Chakotay (Robert Beltran) discuss whether the ship is an appropriate place to raise children, Ensign Samantha Wildman (Nancy Hower) announces that she is pregnant by her husband, who is still in the Alpha Quadrant." --- I am not understanding the connection between the second and third sentence (though I understand it from the perspective of someone who has watched the show. What connection do you mean to communicate to unaware readers? Sadads (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    I'm trying to get across that despite their concerns over whether or not crew should have children, it was ultimately taken out of their hands with the revelation that a crewmember is already pregnant. — fourthords | =Λ= | 03:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "When he brought in the script for series co-creators Michael Piller and Jeri Taylor to review, he was simultaneously told that it was a very good script, yet Piller said right off the bat: "I don't think the teaser works at all."" --- long and complicated sentence, lots of different parts moving. How might you break up these ideas or make it shorter? Sadads (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    How about "When he brought in the script for series co-creators Michael Piller and Jeri Taylor to review, he was told that it was a very good script. Right off the bat however, Piller said that 'I don't think the teaser works at all.'" Does that alleviate any concerns? — fourthords | =Λ= | 03:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    I think so. I will clarify more as I work through in another review.Sadads (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is the fact that "Author David McIntee" had an opinion about the blooper? What type of author is he? Is his opinion important?
    McIntee is a Voyager reviewer, having written a guide to the series. I think his opinion isn't important for who he is, but instead is pertinent because he voices the concerns that Biller and Taylor concede are valid. I don't know how best to explain their attitude towards it without giving it a sounding board. — fourthords | =Λ= | 03:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    For the reader, however, this is a matter of Ethos. Why should the reader trust the quotation as authoritatively commenting on the series? Sadads (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    I removed the sentence about McIntee. — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What does " The special effect of the alien swarm at a distance was partly composited from magnified footage of sperm, as opposed to close-up, where it was CGI." mean? I think you are trying to capture enough information for 2-3 sentences. Sadads (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    "When viewing the alien swarm at a distance, the special effect was a composition from magnified footage of sperm. When viewed close-up however, the alien swarm was computer-generated." Better? — fourthords | =Λ= | 03:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    Much better! Sadads (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph feels more like the information that you were covering in the production section. What if you titled the section as "Production and acting"?
    I don't know. I try to divide reception sections into two parts: one for what those involved thought, and one for what third parties thought. It doesn't really discuss the acting from a NPOV, but tells what Mulgrew and Lien themselves thought of the episode. Does that make sense? Would you still rather split it off somehow? — fourthords | =Λ= | 03:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    Maybe if you split the subsection up with ; headers, Sadads (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    I don't understand. Do you mean to have headers that say literally "Reception by those involved" and "Reception by third parties"? — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Are there any more contemporary reviews? I would imagine that works like TV Guide, etc, would provide decent reviews. Only two reviews seems too limited.
    The two I have are the only ones I found. A cursory search today doesn't find any more either. If the lack of reviews a problem? — fourthords | =Λ= | 03:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    Thats okay: those kinds of publications don't always get archived well, and I imagine we will have a hard time finding them. Just want to make sure that you did a thorough search. If it were an FA I would expect more. That being said, I found a few more internet-based reviews listed at . Trek today, for one, should be included (I would think). Sadads (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    I shy away from using online reviews because then I can fall into the hole of "whose Internet review is good enough to cite, and whose isn't?" When I type out the words "Soandso at TrekToday said the episode yadda yadda yadda", I worry that readers are going to ask "what's TrekToday and what warrants that random Internet site's inclusion when Joe's Trek Blog doesn't?" Does that make sense? It's like your question about McIntee earlier: who is Michelle Erica Green, and why is her opinion important? The other two were published, which lends them some heft, some credence. This one's just "an Internet site". — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look at this so thoroughly. My mind is burnt out recently, and so I'm sorry if I haven't replied in a timely fashion, or if what I've written here doesn't make the most sense. I'll have much more time to devote to Wikipedia this weekend if you're okay with my continued tardiness. Thank you again for your time and attention. — fourthords | =Λ= | 03:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I know how Wikipedia can draw too many commitments from you. Most of the clarification of the questions I had made sense: make sure to work that meaning into the actual article. Sadads (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry I'm so flaky (flakey?) regarding this review. I'm engaged all day with a new obligation, burnt out at night, and don't hardly have the mind to write coherently, much less elegantly. I'm fine with withdrawing this nomination since it's taking so very long. I appreciate all the help you're providing, especially given your expertise in English composition. May I flag you down in the future for help again? — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@Fourthords: I think this would be best for both of us. I have not been very attentive as well, and lately have been exhausted with WP:TWL activities on-wiki, that I don't get to my usual other volunteer activities. Sorry, I didn't see this earlier, I was out of town when that last message came through, and it wasn't brought to my attention until today, Sadads (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)