Talk:Code of Honor (Star Trek: The Next Generation)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WesleyDodds (talk · contribs) 14:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey a subject outside of music and comics I know quite a bit about. Saw a video on YouTube once where Jonathan Frakes was at a convention and called this the single worst episode of the series. Review forthcoming. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I thought that I should quickly add a note about using Jammer's Reviews as a source. I had initially avoided using it in my earlier TNG articles as I thought that it wouldn't meet the reliability criteria (admittedly, I never checked to see if it did). However, then I found that it was a subpage of TrekNation, and based on that I've included it in the article. Miyagawa (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking up something else (reviews for an Enterprise episode) and I discovered that TrekNation had been used as a reference in the Featured Article These Are the Voyages.... Miyagawa (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced. Ask someone at the reference desk what they think about its use as a source. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#TrekNation. Miyagawa (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it onto Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#TrekNation. Miyagawa (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. All righty then, let's commence!

Review

1. Well-written:

Wording problem here: "After a tour of the ship abduct Yar as they transport back to the surface"

I re-worded it to back it a bit more specific. Miyagawa (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a bit more setup for what a holodeck is in the plot section? It's not entirely clear what it is/does exactly.

Also added something a bit more specific as "combat on the holodeck" was rather generic. Miyagawa (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify that Ligon II is a planet.

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the episode in two decades, but would it be fair to rephrase "finds it to be similar to that of ancient Africa following strict customs of status" as "finds it follows strict customs of status similar to ancient Africa"?

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Writer Katharyn Powers was invited to pitch a story for The Next Generation as she knew Star Trek writer D. C. Fontana". A bit awkward here, but passable.

Changed to "was friends with". Miyagawa (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce passive voice as much as you can (ex. "A quirk was introduced into the character Picard in 'Code of Honor' . . .")

Re-worded it. Miyagawa (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Verifiable with no original research:

"James Hunt, whilst writing for Den of Geek, disagreed with Wheaton's assessment . . ." Hunt doesn't address Wheaton or his comments in his review

Changed that to "differed from" rather than "disagreed with". Miyagawa (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that when Wheaton mentions Landau finishing the episode, he ends the sentence with a "citation needed" joke. The inference is that he doesn't remember the events too clearly.

Added the DeCandido reference to that as well, as it also mentions the Landau replacement. Miyagawa (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TrekNation appears to be a fansite, same as Jammer's Review

I was expecting to have to explain TrekNation and Jammer. TrekNation contains The Trek BBS, which is still is frequented by former crew and cast of Star Trek. Jammer himself started out reviewing Voyager, and ended up being held in such esteem by Paramount that they flew him out to pitch story ideas for Voyager (although they weren't used). He then carried on doing Enterprise and afterwards went back and did Next Gen. Miyagawa (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wild about using a retail website to verify the VHS release date. Can you locate an alternate source? WesleyDodds (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had previous attempted to find alternative sourcing for the VHS release dates but couldn't find anything. I ended up going to Tower Records' website as they included specific listings for the original VHS releases and I thought that it was a bit less retail-esque than just using Amazon. Miyagawa (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in its coverage:

I understand that not every episode is going to have a wealth of information about it. As it is, you have covered the main points.

4. Neutral:

No issues

5. Stable:

No issues

6. Images:

No issues

I'm putting this on hold for a week so we can sort out the sourcing issues. Aside from that, it's just about ready for GA status. Keep me informed regarding how everything is coming along. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No word yet on Trek Nation as a source?

Unfortunately no response at all at the noticeboard. Miyagawa (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has now been archived having not recieved a response. In this article, TrekNation is used to support two parts. One is a line about Jonathan Frakes wanting to prevent the distribution of the episode, while the other is the review. I'm happy to remove the former based on the fact that it isn't supported by another source and potentially could just be speculation by the reviewer. Would that be satisfactory, based on the reviews having individual reviewers identified and being opinion pieces rather than something linked to the website? Miyagawa (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I'm so busy offline that I don't think I'll be able to wrap this up anytime soon. I'm going to relist this article for review so it can get proper attention. Sorry again.