Talk:Q Who/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Miyagawa, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks as always for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, on first pass, this looks solid. I've made some prose tweaks throughout; feel free to revert any with which you disagree, and I can explain and discuss. I still need to do some source-checking and independent Googling for this, but my impression is that it's about ready to pass. Two clarity points I couldn't immediately resolve below. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The new race would go on to appear in six episodes of The Next Generation" -- is this counting Q Who or in addition to Q Who?

• Quite right! It was six including "Q Who". I've changed it to "five further episodes". Miyagawa (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• "This may have been linked to the aliens seen in "Conspiracy"" -- I'm not sure what the pronoun "this" refers to here.

• I've changed it to "This plot may..." - its been speculated that the aliens seen in Conspiracy had a connection to the hive mind insect race that the Borg idea originated from. There's a couple of websites that present this as fact, but digging deeper I've never found any direct interview etc that has said that it was where it came from. Miyagawa (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review - I have all the source material scanned into a single PDF if you want me to email it over to look at. Just the pages used that is, rather than the whole book. I used to use an app on my phone to make quick scans of pages and then email to myself so I can flick between windows on the computer while editing. More recently (starting with Shades of Grey) I've just had the book next to me as it is quicker although maybe not quite as easy. :) Miyagawa (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, that'd be a huge help. Could you send it to my Wikipedia e-mail? More later! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:24, 2 October 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.
	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.
	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--nice work as always.