Talk:Dominion War/GA3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments: Overall, a strong article, and I'm proud about the amount of effort that's gone into it. It also does a fairly good job of being accessible to non-Star Trek fans, which is very important for this kind of article. That said, it has some structural and stylistic issues that need to be addressed.

The Synopsis section does a good job explaining the overall plot arc, but there's a lot of repetition in overall ideas with the majority of the plot information present in the development section. I think the best way to seperate content that should go versus that which should stay is in part what can be clearly sourced and verified beyond the primary source. Paragraphs like "The Season Three finale turned out to differ significantly from the production staff's conceptual vision..." are good, while the preceding paragraph, " 'Improbable Cause' initiates a two-part adventure concerning the search for the Founders' homeworld..." is largely plot fluff that can be condensed. Remember that some of the content regarded episode themes is more directly relevant to the episode itself rather than this overarching context. This is the biggest issue facing the article. Really, you need to go at it with a red pen and cut it to ribbons to make the rest stronger.
On the image side: there's not much defensible rationale for including File:USS Majestic hit.jpg, File:STDS9Ep226.jpg, and File:USS Sitak and USS Majestic.png. The latter two can pretty much definitely go, although if you strengthen the rationale the first Majestic shot could be included. A better idea based on the article content would be to replace the shot with one of the Defiant getting blown up, given that it's got more weight and defense in the article body. You could also add pictures of the creative staff if there's the room and it makes sense in the locations, but that's not a GA concern.
The reception section is fairly thin in terms of critical views, but you've done a fairly good job at making the best of what you've got. I'll have to see if I can get you access to more sources from my university, but for what you have now it's good enough for GA.
What makes Television Heaven, TrekPlace.com, Twiztv reliable sources?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Any progress being made on the above? :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed two of the images and changed the rationale for File:STDS9Ep226.jpg. I also removed the Television Heaven and TrekPlace.com sources as well as the information cited by them. The other source, Twiztv, once provided copies of television scripts so an offline copy of the script could be cited. I should have the first issue fixed soon. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the bot, this article's review has been "on hold" for improvements for 44 days, which is longer than any other article currently on hold. There have been no comments on the review page for two and a half weeks. Can we try to get this wrapped up, one way or the other? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing due to inactivity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.