Talk:I, Borg/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 12:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A very solid article on a very interesting episode. I will have my comments up as soon as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * I am not sure what you mean with the word "amid" in the following sentence from the lead (In this episode, an injured Borg drone (Jonathan Del Arco) is found amid a crashed scout ship.). I think "on a crashed scout ship" would be more appropriate. "Amid" is an odd word choice for this part as it makes it sound like he was found floating in space amid the debris of his ship.
 * This is an interesting one as I was hoping to find some production information about why they did this, but the "crashed" ship was actually just props dotted around a planet set, so Hugh was just found lying on the ground with these bits of Borg tech dotted around him. Sadly it looks very low budget, and a bit more like a garbage dump than a crashed ship as such. Hence the use of the word "amid" rather than on-board or something similar. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Put a comma after free will in the lead.
 * Remove the comma after Borg in the first sentence of the third paragraph as it is unnecessary.
 * Unlink borg in the plot section as it was already linked in the lead
 * You do not need to repeat "Borg drone (Jonathan Del Arco)" in both the lead and plot section. I would recommend eliminating the parenthesis/actor identification in the plot section as it is unnecessary.
 * I've removed him from the plot; however if it's alright, I'm going to keep the actor identification in the plot otherwise just because I've done it for all the other ST articles up till now. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Overall, this article is very strong. I learned a lot from it and definitely has made me want to watch the episode and Next Generation (I have only seen Voyager). Once my comments are addressed, then this should be a fast and easy promotion. Aoba47 (talk)
 * In "Design and casting of Hugh" subsection, I would revise the following sentence to make it less wordy (At the audition, there were another 10 to 15 actors, and they were each talking to each other and saying that they weren't sure how to undertake the role.) The sentence appears to me unnecessarily long and the same meaning can be conveyed more clearly with more concise language. Also be careful with contractions. If "weren't" is not part of a quote, I would replace it.
 * In the second sentence of the second paragraph of the "Reception and home media release" section, delete the first "but" as it is unnecessary. If you feel a transition is absolutely necessary, then I would use "however."
 * You do not need to cite the same source multiple times in a row. For the section about Keith DeCandido, you only need to put the citation at the end of the sentence ending with with "continuity" as it would be obvious the above sentences come from that source. Same goes for the sentences about Zack Handlen (you only need the citation for the second not the first) and the sentences about the ratings (again you only need the citation for the second sentence not the first).
 * Great sources (very impressed by the quality) and good job with archiving all the links
 * Just as something to consider in the future, but I think the article would benefit greatly from an image of Jonathan Del Arco in character as Hugh (to better represent the costuming and make-up) either in the infobox or in the plot section. I understand why you chose not to include the image as I think we are all weary of uploading and using images. Again, this is not a requirement for this nomination, but just something to consider when editing the article in the future.
 * Thanks for the review, I've addressed everything other than the two points I've inserted above. I was borderline about the image, but I can see your point (and that was what I was leaning on) and so I've added it. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick responses to my comments. The article looks great now! And I agree about the two points you stated in the comments. I just wanted to make sure "amid" was accurately reflecting the scene (which it is) and I agree with your identification of the actor (to stay consistent with your other articles). ✅
 * 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: