Talk:Extinction (Star Trek: Enterprise)/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 09:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You'll get the review in a day or two. -The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 09:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status – Review Criteria   		A good article is—  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

</ol>

Review

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion
The first look gives me an impression of a good article itself. Well written with good focus. Some points to be regarded are:
 * The first three paragraphs of production section draws heavily from cite 2 which ought to be replaced. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 09:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is (and generally with Enterprise episodes) is that the production information is very limited - so I would suspect that cite 2 is the only production information available on the episode, anywhere. There was never a production related book released for the series (not even an e-book!) with the exception of some production info on the first few episodes of the first season at the back of the novelization of "Broken Bow". So the majority of information on the production of Enterprise is effectively mined from old versions of the official Star Trek website. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether a reference for the next episode will do any good or not. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 09:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't previously included it in order articles. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A breakdown of lead section into three paragraphs will be better. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 09:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've broken it into three paragraphs. I've previously used that as my standard, but was trying out a two paragraph format instead. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Result
The article have passed the review. All looks fine and properly fitted. Cites are of no great problem and GA standard is achieved. Though it was a quick review, I feel that all is fine with the article. A better cited article is expected on the future, but for now, it's ready to roll out. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 18:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)