Talk:Too Short a Season/GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Ruby2010 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 03:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Got this one! Ruby 2010/2013 03:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick note to say that I added an extra paragraph on the makeup under the Production section this morning - I realised after the nomination that I'd neglected to check one of the source books. Miyagawa (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
No worries! I should be able to get to reviewing it later today or tomorrow. Were you planning on adding anything else before I begin my review? Ruby 2010/2013 17:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
That should be it now. It'd been a few episodes since I used the makeup book as a reference and I completely forgot it had a chapter of ageing effects used including a few paragraphs on the Jameson makeup. Miyagawa (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Review

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  • Plot section: links for Enterprise and Mordan IV?
  • I was confused by your use of MacGuffin and had to follow the link. It might be good to offer a brief definition for readers
  • I notice a lot of repetition of similar words within the same sentence that could a copy edit (See for instance "One significant change she made was to make the change..." and "...Rohner and director Rob Bowman worked together on weekends to work...")
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  • Direct quotes should immediately be followed by a citation
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  • Any insight on the meaning behind the title?
  • Any ratings data out there you can use?
  • I've never been able to find any specific information on the ratings for TNG apart from general references to the series doing well for a syndicated series. Its because of the syndicated distribution of the show. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  • Some recent edits but that's to be expected as it was recently nominated. Nothing I see as a strike against promotion.
  1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  • One non-free image is used. You might think about boosting the rationale for it, but otherwise I think it is suitable for providing a visual aid on the episode's make-up, which receives commentary
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

The above comments are a preliminary review. The article is close to passing but there are just a few issues that need to be resolved first. Please post here when you have fixed the issues or have responded to my comments. Well done bringing the article from this to its current state! Ruby 2010/2013 03:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your changes look good. I spotchecked the Den of Geek and A.V. Club reviews and found no issues (the former was an amusing read for someone who hasn't seen the series!) Passing for GA. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 20:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply