Talk:D. C. Fontana/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nazcheema (talk · contribs) 21:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Review

I have nominated one and the rule is to review two. As a fan of Star trek I will be happy to review this as one of my two. Please to bear with me while I understand process and criteria. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 21:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am thinking of failing nomination. I have a concern that there is nothing about her personal life, the article reading like a list of works in narrative form. There is a key criterion, broad in coverage, that it is not meeting. I need to think more about criteria and how to interpret. Not only this, I am finding too many instances of English that is unsatisfactory and a lack of dates that makes for an uncertain chronology. For example, which years are covered by her "later work" and is she still working?

Please to leave this with me for now. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 09:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Result

Having read the criteria. I believe this article fails "broad in its coverage" and "well written". That is two of the six good article criteria. I am therefore sorry, I must fail the nomination. It has been nominated too soon when much more work is required still. Among many observations I have of poor English are

1. "She became the secretary for Samuel A. Peeples, who she sold her first story to; "A Bounty for Bill", for the series The Tall Man". This is not good English grammar. "who ... to" should be "to whom" and the semi-colon should be a colon.
2. "novel writer" should be "novelist".
3. "graduated with a Associate degree": "a" is "an" before a vowel.
4. "After she graduated college" should be "After she graduated from college".

Noticing that the assessment was moved to B-class when GAN submitted, I contest this. Using criteria for B-class:

• b1 Coverage and accuracy = no (much more work needed as explained)
• b2 Use of English = no (issues with grammar and wording, reads like a narrative form list of works, spelling is satisfactory)
• b3 Structure = yes (this is satisfactory)
• b4 Navigation = yes (also satisfactory)
• b5 Referencing & citations = yes (but to be verified if a new GAN raised)
• b6 Supporting materials = no (there are none, a few photos would help)

I believe the article is borderline start-class → C-class and will re-assess start-class. I will complete the GAN with a fail. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 12:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)