Talk:The Naked Now/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 18:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Right, I'm happy to give this one a go. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	The prose is generally good, but could do with a few improvements to better fit Wikipedia's standards. For instance "The episode intended to deliberately follow..." is wordier than necessary. Consider changing "The story was written by D. C. Fontana under the psuedonym J. Michael Bingham, while John D. F. Black was credited due to the story's origins. Paul Lynch was the director." to "Directed by Paul Lynch, the episode had been written by D.C. Fontana under the pseudonym of "J. Michael Bingham", with John D.F. Black also credited for his role in devising the plot's origins." There are various unclear or unnecessary bits in the "Plot" section, i.e. "messages it has received" to "messages received". "La Forge infected Yar next after hitting on her" - many readers won't understand "hitting on her".
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section could do with being more comprehensive; it does not mention that ST:TNG is an American show, nor does it claim that that date of first broadcast was in the United States - further evidence of the American-centric systemic bias of the Wikipedia project. The second paragraph should state that the show is set in the 24th century. There is no date given for "The Naked Now".
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.
	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.	There's been some good work done here so far, but it's not quite GA quality. I'm putting it temporarily on hold, so that the nominator can make the sufficient changes needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made the amendments as suggested, and given the plot section a copyedit. Miyagawa (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I can still see quite a few prose errors and other issues with the text. I shall go through and make the necessary changes; I hope that you don't mind. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Generally, this is a pretty well researched and put together article Miyagawa, but there are far too many prose problems and other areas where it strays far away from the Wikipedia MOS. I see that you have put up quite a few other articles on Star Trek episodes for GA review over at the nominations page, but may I suggest that you put them up for peer review first ? That way, many of these prose problems can be ironed out prior to the GA review stage. I don't mean to discourage you at all however, because – and I must reiterate it – you are doing some great work assembling these articles, but there are quite a few problems here that I would personally see dealt with elsewhere. No obligation though, as you know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you please clarify "and in fact would have enjoyed seeing a similar episode a few seasons into Star Trek: Voyager" for me please ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The reviewer thought that the episode would have been better served appearing several seasons into Voyager, as it would have revealed some interesting information about the characters. The reference makes the point that it would have resolved some character issues a great deal quicker than the way they were eventually written. (If I remember correctly, that would include the Torres/Paris relationship). Miyagawa (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think this can pass GA review now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)