Talk:Mercy Point/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: PanagiotisZois (talk · contribs) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this article for a review. Will have made comments by the weekend. Hopefuly I'll have enough time (probably will) to write the whole review in a single edit rather than in parts. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, take as much time as you need. Thank you for taking this up for review. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead sections

After listing the actors, it would be best to say the show takes place in the 23rd century first before stating it's about doctors.
For the executive producers, instead of having a seperate sentence combing it using ";".
"Critical response to Mercy Point was mixed". (I know, minor but it does look better)

Premise

Remove "staff" and simply say "revolved around the doctors and nurses".
The medical staff "is refered to" as med-nauts.

Characters

"The new head nurse and anrdoid ANI". I don't know why but saying "android new" just rubs me to wrong way.
Removed "a" from "is a part of" or write "is a member".

Casting and filming

Forgot the comma after The X-Files.
The Stargate link is about the whole franchise. Specify which show you're talking about.
Both Battlestar Galactica and Smallville were created after 2000. Thus, saying "previously done". I'd recommend removing them.

If I removed "previously", would it be acceptable to keep the list of shows, or would you prefer to cut down the lists of shows to X-Files and SG-1? I am happy either way, just curious. Aoba47 (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I'd say to keep "previously" and remove the latter two shows. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: Done. Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"had previously worked on".

Episodes

In episode 3: "for his blood". Unless of course the aliens use different gender pronouns :P
Episode 4: "for a patient whose".
Episode 5: "proportion of alien deaths".
Episode 6: "prevents him from"

Broadcast history

"paired with the Star Trek installment"

Critical response

Remove "by" after "Saturday Night Live skit".

That's everything I could find. As always, great article with extremely minor mistakes. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Crap forgot to ping you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: I believe that I have addressed everything. Thank you for the review! Aoba47 (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind. I made two edits on the page that you hadn't done yet. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Additional comment, seeing as UPN's name meaning is stated in the lead, it's not necessary to repeat it in the "Characters" section. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: The edits are very helpful, and I have revised this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I guess at this point the only change that should be made is in the second paragraph of the lead section. Specifically, the first two sentences about its evolution from film to series. It's stated in the production section that Mandalay picked up the script. It wasn't until later that it was changed into a TV series. I'm sure it was at that point that the film division took over production. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: I think that I have corrected this, but I look forward to your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Much better :D. One a side note, considering the financial failures, I wonder how much of that 200 hour footage from the deal was actually filmed. OK, with this I believe we've caught every grammar & spelling error and ensured the article is readable/easy to understand. I'll be moving into the criteria. PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That would be interesting to know. Aoba47 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
As stated, spelling and grammar mistakes have been corrected. Additionally, the article itself had been slightly altered to ensure anyone with no prior knowledge of the show can read and understand it.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Follows "lead section", "characters", "episodes" etc. format.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Follows the 30em style to ensure the references don't take up too much space.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
The references come from reliable sources

C. It contains no original research:
All of the info is sourced

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Sources are paraphrased a few times without copying the entire thing.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
As broad as you can be for a cancelled show with 7 episodes. It's actually even more informative than one would expect.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Doesn't offer any "trivia" or unnecessary information.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
The article does not attempt to portray the show as either positive or negative, remaining neutral.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
The article was untouched for a long time until Aoba jumped in. However, at this point any additional changes are relatively minor and no other editor has attempted to make any huge changes.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Only one fair-use image is used with the appropriate copyright status.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The image is the title card and used in the infobox. Clearly relevant and appropriate.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

If it didn't pass I could have made a "No Mercy" joke. Oh well. (world's smallest violing starts playing) The article definately passes with flying colors. Great work @Aoba47:. Especially given that it was a TV show with only 7 episodes.

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.