Talk:Kir'Shara/GA1

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 09:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: Miyagawa (talk)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  09:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

1: 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:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 5) ** Major Point 1: Plot "In this episode, Enterprise is caught in a crossfire … to the rest of the Vulcan High Council." (summarised well in the lead)
 * 6) ** Major Point 2: Production "It was writer Michael Sussman's third episode … returned as Shran." & "The episode was shot across seven days … episode "Amok Time"." (summarised well in the lead)
 * 7) ** Major Point 3: Themes ""Kir'Shara" and the Vulcan arc showed themes … compared to the Nag Hammadi library." (summarised well in the lead)
 * 8) ** Major Point 4: Reception and home media release "originally aired on December 3, 2004." & "The episode received a Nielsen rating … mixed opinions regarding the ending of the episode." (summarised well in the lead)
 * 9) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 10) ** Major Point 1: Plot "In this episode, Enterprise is caught in a crossfire … to the rest of the Vulcan High Council." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 11) ** Major Point 2: Production "It was writer Michael Sussman's third episode … returned as Shran." & "The episode was shot across seven days … episode "Amok Time"." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 12) ** Major Point 3: Themes ""Kir'Shara" and the Vulcan arc showed themes … compared to the Nag Hammadi library." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 13) ** Major Point 4: Reception and home media release "originally aired on December 3, 2004." & "The episode received a Nielsen rating … mixed opinions regarding the ending of the episode." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 14) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 15) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 16) *** "Kir'Shara" is the tenth episode of the fourth season of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Enterprise, and originally aired on December 3, 2004.
 * 17) *** Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:BETTER). As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?".
 * 18) *** The part "and originally aired on December 3, 2004" can be moved somewhere down the lead.
 * 19) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 20) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 21) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 22) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 23) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 24) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 25) ** Check for Biographies: NA
 * 26) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 27) Check for Biographies of living persons:  NA
 * 28) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 29) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 30) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 31) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 32) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 33) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) ** Use a different heading for section Reception and home media release. There is only a short paragraph dealing with home media release – "The first home media release … is due on April 1, 2014.". I recommend Reception.
 * 4) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 5) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 6) ** Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. (WP:BETTER)
 * 7) ** Fix "The first home media release … is due on April 1, 2014." in the Reception section.
 * 8) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 11) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): None
 * 12) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 13) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None
 * 14) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): ✅
 * 15) * Check for Links to sister projects: None
 * 16) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 17) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 18) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 19) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 20) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 13) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  ✅

Check for WP:MOSFICT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

None


 * Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
 * Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research
 * a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
 * b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google. Cross-checked with other FA & FL)

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅

Cross-checked with other FA & FL: Tasha Yar, List of Star Trek: The Next Generation cast members‎ & List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine cast members


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (not contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: No
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) ** Kapell, Matthew (McFarland & Company)
 * 7) ** (Radio Times)
 * 8) ** (Star Trek.com)
 * 9) ** Leao, Gustavo (Trekweb)
 * 10) ** (The Gnostic Society Library)
 * 11) ** (Zap2it)
 * 12) ** Krutzler, Steve (Trekweb)
 * 13) ** Donnelly, G.J. (TV Guide)
 * 14) ** (IGN)
 * 15) ** Herc (Ain't It Cool News)
 * 16) ** Green, Michelle Erica (TrekNation)
 * 17) ** Epsicokhan, Jamahl (Jammer's Reviews)
 * 18) ** Douglass Jr., Todd (DVD Talk)
 * 19) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 20) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 21) * What else has the author published?:
 * 22) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 23) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 24) * McFarland & Company
 * 25) * Radio Times
 * 26) * Star Trek.com
 * 27) * Trekweb
 * 28) * The Gnostic Society Library
 * 29) * Zap2it
 * 30) * TV Guide
 * 31) * IGN
 * 32) * Ain't It Cool News
 * 33) * TrekNation
 * 34) * Jammer's Reviews
 * 35) * DVD Talk
 * 36) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅


 * 1) * "finally grows up and becomes a Star Trek series this week".[14] (Random check on source 14, successful, " Enterprise finally grows up and becomes a Star Trek series this week. The series has slowly been creeping up on my anticipation list with every episode this season, each hour making me eager for the next.  ")
 * 2) * "far from a perfectly executed Trek story but they get enough right to make it a lot easier to overlook the few things they miss."[14] (Random check on source 14, successful, "Kir'Shara is far from a perfectly executed Trek story but they get enough right to make it a lot easier to overlook the few things they miss. There's a looseness to the series this season, almost like they know there's only a slim chance of getting renewed so they might as well do what they want instead of what they think will sell.")
 * 3) * "this could become some of the best Star Trek ever made".[14] (Random check on source 14, successful, "It is truly ironic that this could become some of the best Star Trek ever made and that it will be seen by the smallest audience in the franchise's history.")
 * 4) * "suddenly makes sense of years of previously incomprehensible Vulcan policy" … .[7]
 * 5) * "absolutely gripping episode" except for the "ludicrousness of the ending".[16]
 * 6) * "I suppose the Romulans had to show up at some point, I guess Vulcan is as good a place as any."[16]
 * 7) * "pointless",[16]
 * 8) * "not perfect, but good" with an "intriguing" ending.[17]
 * 9) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 10) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 8) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 9) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images (None)

(NA)

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):
 * 2) Check for copyright status:
 * 3) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):
 * 4) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):
 * 2) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):
 * 3) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):

As per the above checklist, the issues identified are :
 * Fix first sentence of the lead.
 * Fix heading for the section Reception and home media release.
 * Fix short paragraphs.

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I’m glad to see your work here. I’m putting the article on hold. All the best, -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  20:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I've made those couple of edits as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)