Talk:Unity (Star Trek: Voyager)

Unity (Star Trek: Voyager) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 21, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Unity (Star Trek: Voyager) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 July 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the writer of the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Unity" based the episode on the destruction of the Tower of Babel?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Unity (Star Trek: Voyager).

Wikipedia

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Star Trek High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unity (Star Trek: Voyager)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 14:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. I may have seen the episode some time in the dim and distant past, but certainly haven't recently. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation of what a Borg cube is ("a large Borg spacecraft" or something) in the lead would be helpful.

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you feel about this, but perhaps the actors could be named in the plot section?

I was told by another reviewer not to do this anymore, but since this was the second review in a row which suggested it, I've added it back. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"he sees that they all the others have been Borg implants" Grammatically odd, and all what others?

I've modified that line. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on why destroying the cube helps Voyager, and it's also unclear to me what Chakotay is questioning at the end of the episode. Could these bits be clarified?

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"and to the audience in general" Can something be a moral dilemma to someone?

I've removed that line. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Kate Mulgrew?

I've prefixed her with actress - and now she's mentioned in the plot too. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"as the direction had some specific ideas for the scene but Mulgrew suggested something more fluid" I'm not clear what this means

I've removed that bit of the line. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The montage scene in the episode" What montage scene?

I've added it to the plot as well. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It used clips from a number of previous Star Trek episodes including "Q Who" from The Next Generation, "Caretaker" from Voyager, as well as "Emissary" and "The Way of the Warrior" from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.[8]" Could this be rephrased to be a little smoother?

I've copyedited it. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"which McNeill described as "the scarier Borg"" Scarier than what?

I've expanded it. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cooperative is referred to in several ways- cooperative, Cooperative, Co-operative, etc. Consistency would be good!

Changed all but one instance to "Co-operative" - the exception is because it is in the title of a citation. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Instead, they returned in the "Delta Rising" expansion" Instead of what?

I've removed the "Instead". Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of "Later influence" is pretty difficult to follow, and should probably be restructured.

I've given it a copy edit. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"another alien race had defeated them an" Who? The ex-Borg?

Edited to say the Borg.

"Jamahl Epsicokhan on his website Jammers Reviews" calls "Unity", "a standout [Voyager] episode." Unclear. Also, what makes this a reliable source?

I've removed the standout bit of the quote. I tend to use Jammer's Reviews as a reliable source as at the time of Voyager's broadcast, his thoughts towards the episodes were considered so important to the show that he was flown out to LA to pitch stories. None of them got picked up, but it marked him as different to the majority of reviewers. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Dreamwatch magazine gave the" Personification

I've edited this line. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"While it praised the nature of the episode, saying the plot was "very clever", but also added that there was an ambiguity towards the end of the episode about whether or not Chakotay agrees with what he is doing." Unclear

I've given that a copyedit. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the website DVD Talk" Is this a reliable source?

I've used it quite a few previous GANs and FLs. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Jankiewicz link doesn't need an accessdate- it's a courtesy link.

Removed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources generally look appropriate- I'm not going to quibble any further than I already have for GAC.
Do you really need all those navboxes?

I've removed two that the episode didn't appear in. Miyagawa (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images look fine. An enjoyable and interesting read- I've no doubt that this will be ready for promotion shortly. I've done a moderate amount of copyediting, including changing the meaning slightly in at least one case. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple more tweaks, and I'm now happy that this is ready for promotion. That was painless! Great little article. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My 300th review- a worthy article! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]