Jump to content

Talk:Tapestry (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTapestry (Star Trek: The Next Generation) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 3, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
March 29, 2016Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Failure

[edit]
  • No Fair Use Rationales
  • No references

Picard's heart

[edit]

I haven't seen this episode for a while so my memory may be off but doesn't Q give Picard a real heart upon the return to the "correct" timeline? I am almost sure that happened, which is one of the reason's this episode sticks in my mind. It shows Q truly loves Picard as a friend. And I also distinctly remember Picard commenting to the effect that if what he remembers actually transpired, he is in debt to Q. Billywhack 12:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Picards Heart They don't quite say in the episode if he got the real one or he just didn't die. But indeed he did bring him back to the same point where he originally did die. This is a great episode though and I agree Q secretly wants to be friends with "Mon Capitan" Jtflood1976 (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of two things happened, when Picard rejoins the timeline, and survives the attack, either Q has made his artificial heart work well enough for Dr. Crusher to stabilize him (which at the beginning of the episode wouldn't have worked), or Q let Picard live risk taking lifestyle that he embraced, then gave him an organic heart at the last moment, when he needed it. Fanon seems to assume the latter happened, so that Picard can survive being turned to a pre-teen in the episode Rascals. The actual episode's dialog remains ambiguous. 64.252.69.67 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut off summary

[edit]

Why does the plot summary begin mid-thought without explaining the incident that begins the episode? It's as if the opening paragraph was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnanninga (talkcontribs) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tapestry (Star Trek: The Next Generation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second on my "to review" list. Johanna(talk to me!) 00:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I am guessing that this was not your upload, but I would remove that non-free file unless you can tell me why it's necessary.
  • Can you add running time to the infobox?
  • This is not a necessity, but I would replace the em dashes in the guest actors part with "as"
  • "Nielsen ratings of 13.8 percent were received..." The phrasing of this sentence is rather poor.
  • I find "writing and premise" to be a bit redundant, as the premise is included in the writing process.
  • It's a bit strange to go from the first sentence to "Moore's original premise" which makes it sound like the two are entirely different.
  • "it had to be trimmed" What had to be cut down, and why?
  • Copyedit the second paragraph of "writing"
  • "Producer Jeri Taylor" Be more specific about the "it" later in the sentence.
  • I would put all the stuff about Brandy in the same paragraph.
  • "get together" is very informal.
  • "However this scene did feature" rephrase
  • What members of the crew made this comparison.
  • I know what you mean, but say something different than "white scenes"
  • "could be perceived like that" rephrase
  • Can you put a critical consensus at the top of the "critical reception" section?
  • It was not immediately clear to me what DeCandido novel had to do with the episode until the next sentence, so could you condense that portion into one sentence?
  • Why is "The Morton Report" reliable?
@Miyagawa: That's all I have. I will definitely pass after these are cleared up. Johanna(talk to me!) 19:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Johanna: I think that was everything. Let me know if there's anything else. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Miyagawa: Wonderful. Pass. If you plan on taking this to FA (which I would recommend) I would just have a copyedit (GOCE or self) done beforehand. Nice work! Johanna(talk to me!) 21:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Johanna: Thanks for the review - it'll be good to get a TNG episode to FA to go with the TOS and Enterprise eps (and hopefully the DS9 one shortly). Miyagawa (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]