Talk:Storm Front (Star Trek: Enterprise)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 13:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa: Grabbing this for a review.

Lead and infobox[edit]

  • Add a comma after “the timeline”. This is more of a suggestion as it the Oxford comma so it is really up to your personal preference (but I always prefer using the Oxford comma). I would also add a comma after “the end of the Temporal Cold War” for the same reason
  • I normally tend to overuse Oxford commas, so I'm surprised I missed an opportunity to use one! I've added it. Miyagawa (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

  • Change “Following on from the events…” to “Following the events of…”
  • I would rephrase the first sentence to “survive the attack by P-51 Mustangs on their shuttlepod and arrive back on Enterprise.” as I feel it is more direct. Keep the links obviously.
  • I would separate the sentence about the identification of Vosk and the Enterprise being brought into the past into two separate sentences as it is somewhat abrupt. I would separate it into two sentences so you can briefly expand "the Temporal Cold War" to someone unfamiliar with the show and maybe make the time travel seem less abrupt and random if possible.
  • I've split the sentences and added a mention of the Temporal Cold War. It's a bit hard to make an explanation succinct, as we're never really told all that is going on anyway. Miyagawa (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would restructure the sentence about Archer taking a communications device as it reads somewhat awkwardly with the dependent clause in the middle of the sentence.
  • I would change “and Hitler does not perceive Russia as threat” to “causing Hitler to not perceive Russia as a threat.” Regardless if you take my suggestion or not, you need replace “as threat” with “as a threat”
  • Clarify the meaning of “the Resistance”. I am assuming that you are referring to American resistance fighters, but since you never introduce them as a formal group called the Resistance, the meaning here can be a little unclear.
  • Change “visit nor bother” “should never visit or bother”
  • Change “Their mission completed” to “With their mission completed”
  • Clarify the meaning of “friendly vessels”. What exactly are you referring to here? The language is somewhat vague.
  • Yeah, I got too wordy there for some reason - I changed friendly to Starfleet to be clear. I think I was trying to avoid saying Federation as that wasn't created at that point, but Starfleet would have been correct anyway as that did exist. Miyagawa (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Production[edit]

  • The image needs an alt and I would recommend presenting it as upright (the last part is merely a suggestion and not required)
  • The final sentence of the first paragraph in “Premise and writing” needs to be reworked as it reads very awkwardly. You could separate it into two sentences if that would help to make it clearer. The information is important, but just needs to worded and structured better.
  • It seems somewhat odd that you only identify Golden Brooks’ prior roles and not Maruzzo and Schirripa. I would expand on this paragraph a little bit more as I am not entirely sure how these actors fit “stunt casting”. Since the “stunt casting” part is central to this section and included in the lead, it should be clear and fully cover the topic.
  • I see what happened there, I've switched the sentence around - Maruzzo and Schirripa were the ones in The Sopranos. Miyagawa (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would separate the final sentence in the first paragraph of “Filming” into two sentences as it reads somewhat awkwardly.
  • I've split that into two sentences and trimmed out some of the fluff. Miyagawa (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put a comma after “Subsequently”

Reception[edit]

  • Change “was debuted” to “debuted”
  • Change “was broadcast” to “was broadcasted”
  • Remove the comma after “the Knight Ridder newspapers”
  • I would replace “But she felt that this…” with “However, she felt the episodes were…”
  • Clarify “inherited the same issues” to “inherited the same issues from past episodes”
  • I am not sure why you have to clarify that IGN “featured reviews of both parts of the episode” as all the previous reviews involved both parts as well. I would cut that.
  • I would rephrase the IGN paragraph to the following: (KJB of IGN gave the first half a three out of ten, describing it as “awful” and criticizing its lack of pace. KJB gave the second half a four out of ten, saying that it was “thin on plot”. Coto was praised for killing off "long term pain" Silik, adding that the Suiliban were "still the worst aliens ever created for the Trek franchise". KJB closed the review on the following hopeful statement: "With some of the conceptual flotsam flushed away, Coto may actually have a chance to give Enterprise a decent final run before its inevitable and grisly end.") I suggest this as you need to identify the reviewer from the website and I tried to fix some of the structure/flow problems while preserving your quotes and wording. Keep the link to IGN.
  • I think I ended up writing it pretty much the same as you suggested after trying some different changes. I removed the repeated citations as well. Old habits. Miyagawa (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not you use my above suggestion, you do not need to repeatedly use reference 18 over and over in the same paragraph. Just use it at the end of the paragraph when you last use the reference.
  • Hadn't even read this line when I removed it! Old habits die hard - I try not to do that anymore, as it was based on my misunderstanding of the citation policy regarding quotes. Miyagawa (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • Great job with your research here!

Final comments[edit]

  • @Miyagawa: Great work with this article. It was a very informative and enjoyable read. Please let me know if you have any questions about my review and I will pass this article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Thanks for reviewing, once this one is in the bag then I'll be able to nominate the fourth season to become the ST project's first Good Topic. Miyagawa (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Miyagawa: Awesome! You have done a lot of great work so hopefully I can help in some way. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Miyagawa: You have addressed all my comments. Great work with this article and good luck with nominating the fourth season as a Good Topic. This is a definite ✓ 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:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Storm_Front_(Star_Trek:_Enterprise)/GA1&oldid=712348438"