Talk:Justice (Star Trek: The Next Generation)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 01:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved

• In this episode, Wesley Crusher (Wil Wheaton) inadvertently breaks the absolute law of an alien world. When he is sentenced to death, Captain Jean Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) has to deal with the world's powerful and mysterious protector, as well as considerations concerning violation of the Prime Directive.
  • This could benefit from a rewrite. First, it sounds like Picard is sentenced to death even though you are referring to Wesley. Second, the fact that he "has to deal" with the problem, makes it sound like it is an inconvenience to save Wesley's life. Third, "considerations concerning violation of the Prime Directive", is a bit too aloof. However you choose to rewrite it, you may want to mention that Wesley was part of the away team to an alien world. While playing catch with the local kids, he inadvertently breaks a greenhouse while receiving a pass and is sentenced to death. Captain Jean Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) must negotiate with the powerful and mysterious protector of the world and consider violating the Prime Directive to save Wesley's life. Or something like that. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've reconstructed those lines. Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for trying! For the sake of clarity, I changed it to "The episode received a mostly negative response, with critics pointing to issues with the quality of the acting and the predictability of the plot." If you look at the criticism section, all of it falls under 1) acting and 2) plot predictability. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• nature of the plot
  • That's not very specific. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've redrafted to make it more specific. Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Copyedited. If you disagree with my changes, feel free to modify. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Plot

Resolved

• Copyediting in progress...
  • Copyedit complete. The last paragraph reads somewhat poorly. You may want to look at it to see if you can improve it. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Production

Resolved

• His idea was based on the colony planet of Llarof with capital punishment inflicted for any offense except against those deemed to be immune from the law.
  • You neglected to mention that the idea came from his original film treatment of the story. That's an important part of this sentence, otherwise nobody knows what the colony is referring to here. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Black explained that the premise that a society developed laws to prevent terrorism and anarchy, saying "Let's say that what we do is kill everybody who is a terrorist or suspected of being a terrorist. Now the people who have killed everybody, what do they do?"
  • I think you meant to say, "Black explained the premise of a society that developed laws to prevent terrorism and anarchy: 'Let's say that what we do is kill everybody who is a terrorist or suspected of being a terrorist. Now the people who have killed everybody, what do they do?'" Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Copyediting still needed... Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Copyedits complete. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Reception and home media

Resolved

• This section needs copyediting.
  • Copyediting complete. The prose doesn't flow as nicely as I like, but it appears to meet the criteria at this time. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

See also

Resolved

• Can these links be incorporated into the main body? In other words, do we have sources about this episode mentioning them? If not, that's OK. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't find any sources directly comparing the episodes, so I put them into the see also section. I could add citations from the episodes themselves if required. Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • No, that's fine. Citations aren't needed here. It's just that whenever I do reviews of any kind (formal or informal) I look to see if links in the see also section can be incorporated into the body of the article. I've found that about half of the time it's possible. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Lead OK

   Plot OK (improvements welcome)

   Production OK

   Reception and home media OK

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Overlinking in infobox and other sections. Please review WP:OVERLINK

   OK

   Are there no sources that would allow use to merge the see also links into the body of the article?

   OK

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Huntington Library trivia moved to note. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Mostly simple issues with prose. Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)