Talk:Mind Meld/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand Neelix retired, so once I complete this review I will go to WT:STARTREK and ask if anybody will be willing to handle this review. Thanks! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 22:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I saw the note, so I'm jumping on-board. :) Miyagawa (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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:

Initial comments

 * "a mind meld being a telepathic link that Spock, a Vulcan, is able to create with other organisms" - I would cut the part which mentions Spock, as all Vulcans can perform mind melds
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The third paragraph should open up with stating how the critics overall viewed the film (if it is a reception paragraph, that is)
 * "Scott Brown of Entertainment Weekly gave the film an F" - I would put 'F' in quotes
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Shatner first proposed the film in conversation with Nimoy, suggesting that they be vulnerable" - I didn't understand this part, what has released a documentary got to do with being vulnerable?
 * Nor me, I've removed it. Miyagawa (talk)


 * "O'Brien raised the issue of the supposed flatulence in Mind Meld" - I would write Conan O'Brien's name fully here, as I really thought for a moment that this was Miles O'Brien!
 * I did as well! Done. Miyagawa (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Wil Wheaton's comic science fiction improvisational theatre company" - WP:OVERLINK here, cutting down on comic science fiction wouldn't hurt
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I would split the References section into two columns, as it exceeds the usual limit
 * I've added the 30em formatting as that seems to be pretty standard these days.

On hold
This is a very well written article that is on the road to becoming GA. Well, other than that fact that 50% of this article is about Shatner flatulating, I'd say that this passes the "comprehensive" part of the criteria as is also well written. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days until those minor issues can be addressed. Thanks! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 16:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing! Miyagawa (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted
Thank you for taking over! I'm sure the Talaxian would be proud. I'm confident that this article now meets the GA criteria in all aspects, so promoting ☯  Jag  uar  ☯ 22:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Jaguar, for reviewing this GAN and for passing it, and thank you, Miyagawa, for addressing the relevant issues in my absence. After about two months away from Wikipedia, I have decided to return, and this article's achievement of good status is a very nice surprise to return to. I think that all of the changes you suggested and implemented improved the article. Neelix (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)