Talk:Elogium (Star Trek: Voyager)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 03:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As a huge fan of Voyager, I definitely have to grab this one for review. Let me know if it is okay for me to review this as I have reviewed a lot of your articles lately, but reading through all this stuff has made more interested in the franchise (I've only seen Voyager so far but I would be interested in seeing more when I have time). I should have your review up in a couple days. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

 * Change the following phrase (based on an experience Diggs while serving in the United States Navy) to (based on Diggs’ experiences in the United States Navy). Keep the link to the navy.
 * Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove “also” in front of "proposed" as there is not indication of another proposal from Diggs before this.
 * No problem, done. Miyagawa (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The phrase “which was agreed by Taylor” is awkward and needs to be reworked. You could say the following instead (Taylor incorporated Diggs’ suggestion to name a character “Samantha Wildman” after an organ donor who saved his wife’s life.)
 * I've changed that as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove “—work” and just say “The script was Biller’s first work for the series and earned him a permanent spot on the writing staff after impressing the producers.”
 * Not sure why the -work was there - but I've removed it and phrased it as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarify the meaning behind the sentence with Winrich Kolbe (Specify why he was disappointed, and the sentence can be reconstructed as a whole to be more concise).
 * I've tweaked it and tried to make it clear - although tbh, Kolbe doesn't exactly make himself all that clear! Miyagawa (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The last sentence can be separated into two sentences or restructured to make it more concise as it currently reads a little awkward. I would say the following (Critics gave the episode a mixed response, lauding Lien’s performance while criticizing the character dynamics and the message about women wanting to become a mother). Keep the link to mother if you would like, but I do not think it is necessary.
 * Changed as suggested and dropped the mother link - in hindsight it was an overlink. Miyagawa (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Plot

 * This section is very strong overall; I could not find much at all to change here.

Production

 * This is true for the entire article, but make sure all the punctuation is outside of the quotation marks unless you are quoting a complete sentence.
 * I just double checked and I think we're good. Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The last sentence of the second paragraph should be changed. It is currently unnecessarily using the passive voice and reads awkwardly. Change to (Jeri Taylor rewrote the episode to interweave Kes’ need to make as the B-story.)
 * I rewrote that as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove “right off the bat” and just start the sentence with “however”
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Image needs an alt and I would recommend using “upright”
 * Added. Not sure how I keep forgetting those. Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Reception

 * Change the semicolon after “a certain role” to a colon
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Other than that small change, this section is very strong overall.

Home media release

 * Add a comma after United States in the last sentence.
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Final comments

 * Overall, everything about this article is relatively solid. Once my comments are addressed, this should be an easy pass. Let me know if you have any questions at all about my review. Aoba47 (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always for reviewing, I think I've made all the suggested changes now. I'm a fan of all of the incarnations, hence the rather slapdash and random approach to article improvement (admittedly when I started this little expansion project several years ago, I tried doing all of TNG season one at once and got bored, hence the new randomness). Voyager in particular is a tough one as there surprisingly hasn't been a lot written about the production of the series - the companion book is the worst produced for any of the series (verging on no production information at all) and there's been no books covering the production of the final three seasons at all. Crazy really. I was rather hoping that Pocket Books would see the gaps and release something for the 50th anniversary but it doesn't look like that is gonna happen. Jeri Taylor donated all her production notes for the first four seasons to Indiana University, so perhaps at some point in the future someone will write the comprehensive production of the first four seasons. Actually, I just remembered that the book Star Trek: Action!, which I have a copy of (but haven't got around to using for Wiki yet) has the most comprehensive coverage of any episode I've ever seen - and that happens to be a Voyager episode ("Hope and Fear"). There must be fifty pages of production notes on that one episode. I must dust that off and actually read it sometime. Anyway, I got completely off topic there didn't I? Thanks again for reviewing, I always appreciate it. Miyagawa (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You have done an excellent job and there's nothing wrong with doing various episodes from various incarnations. I have actually really enjoyed reading your different articles and found them to be very informative. It is somewhat strange that there isn't much out there on Voyager (I probably think that because I grew with the show). Good luck with future revisions to other articles and I look forward to reviewing more of your articles in the future. ✅
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: