Talk:Haven (Star Trek: The Next Generation)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 06:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know how this works, so i'll just get straight into it now, thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 06:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" the filmed version" Is this referring to the regular version, if so, why call it the "filmed" version?

Urgh - that should have been final version. I've amended it. Miyagawa (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section ends a bit abruptly, could you add something to make it clear this is the end of the epiosode?

Added some further detail earlier on in the plot and stated that the Tarellian vessel departed the system. Miyagawa (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First two sentences of production section don't link very well, and are a bit confusing. I think the second sentence seems a bit out of place, could you rewrite this section?

Rejigged the first paragraph - changed the sentence order a little and reworded a couple of parts. I think it flows better now. Miyagawa (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed the article, thanks Miyagawa ★★Retro Lord ★★ 05:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	"during the week of November 30, 1987" Is a specific date possible? If not I understand. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 07:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Because the episodes were aired directly into syndication to local channels across the states, they didn't put a requirement on which night TNG was aired. So it aired on different days of the week in different locations. I've been stating a specific day previously in these articles but that wasn't entirely accurate - I need to go back over the previous TNG episodes and rectify that. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I was just about to add some reviews to "Too Short a Season" when I realised that it was in about 170 locations across the United States. I think we can say for certain that someone, somewhere, aired the episodes on the first day, and so I've edited the "week" part out of the lead and the reception section. Miyagawa (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial 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 media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	PASS! That was an quick review - Thanks!