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

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 05:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review. I will have my comments up as soon as possible.

Lead

• Change the word cancelled in "cancelled late 1970s series" to either planned or proposed. Cancelled makes me thin the series made it to the air and then was cancelled by the network.

• Cancelled was actually more correct - the series went into pre-production and was cancelled after filming tests began. Several of the sets constructed were used in the various Star Trek productions all the way up to Voyager. Miyagawa (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up! In this context, "cancelled" makes more sense.

• The following sentence ("The child's presence on the ship begins to endanger the crew and it sacrifices its physical body, telling Troi of its purpose as it leaves.") is very vague. Since this is jut the lead, you should not expand too much, but I think separating the above sentence in two and clarifying what you mean "endanger the crew", "sacrifices its physical body", and "its purpose".

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Great change! Just a minor nitpick, but instead of the comma between "being" and "telling", put "and" to make the sentence flow more clearly.

• Rephrase the first part of the following sentence (" They also compared the means of the character's pregnancy to rape, and that the reactions of the other crew were irrational.") It is clear that critics did not like the crew's reaction, but did critics praise or criticize the comparisons to rape? Make this a little more clear.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Plot

• Clarify why there are two actors for the character of Ian. I am assuming it is due to his age progression, but make it more clear. You do a great job identifying the first actor as portraying the four-year-old version of the character, but do something similar for the second actor.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete the comma between "dying" and "anda"

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• For "discovers that he is the source of Eichner radiation", just say radiation as you already identified Eichner radiation in the same paragraph.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Rephrase the following sentence ("Troi reveals that Ian was a life-force entity, curious about the Enterprise and its crew, and went through the process of being born and growing up to live as one of them.") as it reads awkwardly.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• The comma between "normal" and "and" is unnecessary.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Since this is Guinan's first appearance on the show, why is she absent from this section? There may be a reason for this as I have not seen the episode, but it seems odd that a large portion of the later section is devoted to the character, but she is not mentioned in the plot.

• She doesn't appear in it much, but I've given it a mention. Miyagawa (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Phases II

• Replace "it" with episode in the second sentence to make the meaning absolutely clear.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• For the following sentence ("Livingston was subsequently so impressed with his efforts that he demanded that Roddenberry made him story editor."), delete the second "that" and "made" to "make"

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Break up the following sentence ("Roddenberry refused, until Livingston threatened to quit if Povill didn't get the job, so Roddenberry agreed but Livingston found that this seriously damaged their working relationship.") into shorter sentence as it is very choppy and the transitions are not as fully realized as they could be.

• Done, and made a couple of adjustments to the prose. Miyagawa (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Next Generation

• Image needs an Alt

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Reception

• Combine the third and fourth paragraph as they are covering the same basic topic.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

References

• Overall, great references, but add the accessdate for the Desilu Studios source. I would also encourage you to archive applicable resources (this part is not required, but it is highly suggested).

• Done. The only one that can't be archive is the Tower Video one due to a Robots.txt file on the site. Miyagawa (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Final comments

@Miyagawa: Thanks for nominating! Those are all my comments, and I can pass if they're cleared up. I'll be watching this page. Tell me when you've fixed these issues! Great job. I am interested in watching the episode now. Aoba47 (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for reviewing - I've made all those changes as suggested with the exception of the first one regarding cancellation. Hopefully that'll become clearer when I get around to working up the Phase II article at some point prior to the 50th Anniversary. I actually got the source book out and went to do it... which resulted in working up this article instead! I've already done the other Phase II episode of The Next Generation, so hopefully when I get the book out again, I'll actually do the series article next time around! Miyagawa (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: Awesome work! And thank you for clearing up my confusion with some of the topics. After fixing the minor nitpick in sentence construction, I will pass this. Good luck with working on the "Phase II" article and let me know if you need any help! Aoba47 (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: Since I am only requiring a minor, stylistic edit, I am going to pass this article as a GA. You done a lot of great work with Star Trek articles and I look forward to your future work. Have a great day and let me know if you have any questions! ✓ Pass

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: