Talk:Projections (Star Trek: Voyager)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to review Initiations as well but was beaten to it. I'll take up this review. I mainly focus on copyediting issues and will leave down some initial comments within a few hours or tomorrow. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
It is well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Yes, well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: {{GAList/check}|y}}
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Sorry for coming to this review so late, I've been very ill! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Lead

I'm not sure if the lead complies per the GA criteria or WP:LEAD yet. However, looking at the Initiations episode I think that the lead could be expanded a little...
The lead should be expanded a bit as it is half the size of Initations' lead. I think you could talk about some brief background in the lead otherwise apart from the length everything looks almost fine!
"The episode originally aired on September 11, 1995,[3]" - per WP:LEAD references should not be in the lead of a Good Article. Can you relocate this reference?

Plot

"Voyager's Emergency Medical Holographic Program (EMH), The Doctor" - it would be best to explain that 'The Doctor' was them EMH's nickname or that he was better known as 'The Doctor'
I see no other problems here!

Casting

"Casting for "Projections" was done by Junie Lowry-Johnson, C.S.A and Ron Surma" - it doesn't say what CSA stands for...

Reception

"In his book Delta Quadrant: The unofficial guide to Voyager" - should this be capitalised or is it actually called that?
"though David McIntee would ding the episode on its ultimate predictability and the characterization of Barclay" - umm, what does ding mean?

On hold

This is a small and compact article, nearly worthy of GA status! The only problems I found with it are the minor copyediting issues (all which I have listed above) and the shortness of the lead which needs to be expanded a little (as well as relocating that ref). But with that said, this article is very close to gaining it GA status. I'll put this article on hold for seven days and once all of those issues have been addressed to I will give this its well deserved GA status! Personally I liked the episode although I found Season 1 and 2 to be very dark and slow in pace... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to expand the lede appropriately, but there was simply less material to work with than in "Initiations". Let me know what you think.

I moved the citation for the air date to the info box since I couldn't find anywhere better to put it in the article w/o sounding stilted.

I put quotation marks around "The Doctor" to indicate that he's referred to as such; I liked that solution rather then making the sentence wordier.

I removed the C.S.A. from the casting section; it's an association post-nominal and not really necessary.

Ding? "a deliberate or accidental blow, esp. a mark or dent on the bodywork of a car, boat, or other vehicle." Do you want me to change it? — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

I understand that there are less materials and content than Initiations, but you have done great work with what little information there is on one episode! Also I think "ding" is fine, many people would understand what that word is trying to describe there. The article now complies per the GA criteria, it is short, concise, compact, the prose flows well and all the references are in check. The lead definitely complies per WP:LEAD so there is nothing to worry about there. Sorry for coming to the review late, and well done on building another Voyager GA! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]