Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek/archive2

Star Trek

An archived Peer Review of this article can be seen here.

This article has undergone huge changes of late, and after staring at it for several days, I believe it needs a new set of eyes to determine what else is needed to promote this article to Featured status. Thank you for any imput, Newnam^(talk) 21:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. I have a few, mostly nit-picking comments that I hope are of some use:

• Overall what the page is missing is a section on the Star Trek universe that briefly covers the major races, the location and volume of the Federation space, and the major technologies. I don't think it would need to be long; just enough to get the reader's feet wet (and give a link to a main article).
• Where the starfleet is mentioned in the introduction, it should also explain the purpose of this organization for those who may not be familiar with the Star Trek universe.
• The sentence "Issues depicted in the various series, such as imperialism, class warfare, racism, human rights, and the role of technology" appears incomplete.
• The sentence "Altogether, the six series comprise a total of 726 episodes or thirty seasons or 735 professional hours or 550.75 literal hours[3] of programming" is a little awkward and could use a re-write. For example, "Altogether, the six series spanned thirty seasons over a total of thirty seasons. The combined programming covers 550.75 hours, and required 735 professional hours to produce." (Did I correctly interpret "professional hours" there?)

Probably not - one is about 75% of the other, which looks to me like the ratio between program content time and the time taken to show the episodes with advertising breaks. A "professional hour" would therefore be the one-hour time period in which a 42-minute episode is screened (and yes, that is not 75%, but advertising content standards have changed). Darcyj 12:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• When is the sentence that begins "The original series currently airs on G4..." current? Likewise for the sentence: "The series currently airs on Sky One and BBC Two..."
• In the DSN section, the sentence that beings "The show chronicles the events..." runs on a tad. Could that be split into two smaller sentences right about the location of the "which"?
• The Voyager section mentions the "Delta quadrant". This Star Trek-specific concept should be explained somewhere at or before its introduction.
• The "Use of the name 'Star Trek'" section needs a reference or two.
• Reference [34] should be moved after the period.
• The "Wagon Train to the stars" reference could use a brief explanation in the text, in addition to the link.
• A couple of the footnotes consist of bare URLs. Please enhance these to explain where the reader is heading. (A {{cite web}} template is suggested.)
• The folks in FAC like to see a reference or two in the introduction.

Um, what sort of reference exactly? There are numerous cross-links in the introduction. Do you mean footnote-type external references? Darcyj 12:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! — RJH (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)