Article - was 410 characters when expansion started on 17 February, now 3182 characters of readable prose excluding filmography list, so more than x7 expansion (as BLP wouldn't need anywhere near as much as this) so sufficiently long and expanded enough; neutral; at least one inline citation to every paragraph; no copy vios detected using earwig; and not a stub. I did a very minor copy edit and included Roddenberry was producer as I didn't know who he was (I thought he might have been one of the actors, sorry I really don't know much about Star Trek and readers might not know either).
Hook - within length criteria at 135 characters; correctly formatted; and catchy.
QPQ done; no images; I don't see any BLP concerns.
I may have a 'dim' head on today but I'm just not seeing a definite inline cite for the hook, could you clarify please as everything else checks out. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope, you were quite right - I'd stuck the references at the end of following sentences but not directly at the hook facts. I've added those cites directly after the two points now. Miyagawa (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hook is now fully referenced with refs #2 and #3 (although in two separate paras but not a huge stretch to work it out, so I don't feel it's a problem).