Talk:Jonas Quinn/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Looks good so far. Just a few suggestions:

the nation of Kelowna on Langara (SGC designation P2S-4C3) - no idea what the brackets mean. Is there a way to write it out of universe?
- Removed. The information was merged here so that the crufty Langarans (Stargate) and List of galaxies and planets in Stargate can be gotten rid of, but it's just crufty here as well.
persuade O'Neill to give him a chance - how about "Colonel O'Neill" just on the first (re)mention, as is done with "Major Carter" above?
the courtyard of MGM's Santa Monica offices - spell out/link Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
Joseph Mallozzi stated in an online chat - "chat room"?
- replaced with simply "revealed". It doesn't matter where he stated this.
Could you use a conversion template to convert 25 pounds to kilograms?
agreeing with writer Robert C. Cooper that Nemec had done a "fine" and "wonderful" job - are these quotes from Davis or Cooper? Wording isn't clear.
The reception section is made up completely of quotes from cast or crew members. Though they discuss the audience reaction, I'd say a few comments from reviewers are needed for a broader perspective. Even those quotes only cover the initial backlash and do not mention subsequent fan reaction.
- I have expanded a little bit with info from this Stargate book. I've always found it hard to locate third-party sources for Stargate SG-1 before season 7 (Jonas was a season 6 character), and I am astonished Jonas can carry his own article in the first place (I got lucky on eBay twice).
Should ref 6 use an ampersand as the others do?
- An "and" means that two people wrote a Stargate episode, while "Joseph Mallozzi & Paul Mullie" are a writing duo who always get credited with an "&" even if only one of them writes an actual episode. I think Mallozzi once said the "and" and "&" is a legal thing.

I'll put the GAN on hold, so you'll have a week to make changes. Good work and good luck (and hopefully a good article)! —97198 (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review. I have tried to address all your points.[1] Let me know if there's more to fix. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, especially on expanding that reception section - there aren't as many critics' comments as I would've liked, but if they're non-existent and the section's beefy already it doesn't seem like a valid complaint. I'm happy to promote the article. :) —97198 (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]