Talk:D. C. Fontana/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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  &#124;  talk  &#124;  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  &#124;  talk  &#124;  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  &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  12:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)