Talk:Q-Less/GA1

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 05:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation

 * OK. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Running time	50 minutes (runtime)
 * Where did you get that from? Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I deleted it; you aren't using the running time field in other DS9 articles you nominated, and the data here is wrong. The release was 45 minutes; is there a 50 minute version available? Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing it, it was probably there from before I expanded the article and I forgot to remove it myself. Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Images

 * Image license checks out. Released into public domain by author. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead

 * WP:OVERLINK, episode, science fiction television series,
 * Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Avoid consecutive repetition: "The episode saw the return...The episode was written..." Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ''The episode was written by two former writers from The Next Generation, Hannah Louise Shearer and Robert Hewitt Wolfe..."
 * In the last several reviews, I've noticed you have an odd habit of putting production info in the lead before the plot, when in most cases, it generally follows the plot (per article structure) and reader interest. Is this your own personal style or is there a reason you do this?  Just wondering, as it always throws me off.  I could be wrong, but I believe the majority of GA/FA film articles don't do this. I'm not asking you to change anything, but I am curious as to your motivation, after all, you go back to discussing production in the third paragraph, again. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's something that I've gradually become acustom to. Originally it started with mentions of the writer/director in the first paragraph to bulk it out, then I started putting production information in that paragraph related to the writer/director as well. But I've been toying around with a two paragraph format instead - I've moved stuff around to show what I think it should be in the draft at present, let me know what you think. Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Impressive! Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The producers had been seeking to introduce Q to Deep Space Nine...
 * You explain why in the production section, but I think you should briefly mention it here as well. After all, when I read this, I'm sure that others like myself will ask, WHY THE HELL DID THEY DO THAT?? Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a little more. Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * " "Q-Less" featured a boxing scene where Commander Benjamin Sisko (Avery Brooks) punches Q in the face, something which has been praised by critics and was intended to show the difference in characterization between DS9 and TNG.
 * The meat of the matter is that the scene is also intended to show how Picard and Sisko are different types of captains, and this is illustrated in their relationship with Q.  But you don't say that here. You do, however, say it in the production section.  Instead of talking specifically about the punch in the face scene, why not talk in general terms to illustrate the differences? Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made it more general as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  On first broadcast, "Q-Less" received Nielsen ratings of 12.8 percent, meaning it was the fifth most watched episode of the season.
 * "Meaning" sounds odd here. Don't you usually word it differently? Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Switched to the same sort of wording as used in Captive Pursuit. Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The critical response was mixed, with criticism directed at the balance of the episode between Vash/Q and the main cast, and options about the alien crystal embryo ranging from the storyline needed expansion to consideration that it should have been dropped entirely.
 * Try adding just a bit about the alien embryo artifact, or at least point to the problem with the power drain, in the plot in paragraph two of the lead. When you drop "alien crystal embryo" on the reader at the end of lead paragraph three without hinting at it, I suspect people will find it very confusing. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit, also added a mention of the crystal earlier. Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice work! I really like this. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I love what you did with the lead, but I noticed several very minor issues that I fixed with a copyedit. Please review. Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I like it. I'm going to switch to that format from now on I think. Miyagawa (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Plot

 * Lt. Jadzia Dax (Terry Farrell) returns from the Gamma Quadrant in her runabout with a woman that Chief Miles O'Brien (Colm Meaney) recognizes as Vash (Jennifer Hetrick).
 * Call me crazy, but shouldn't it say that O'Brien recognizes Vash from the Enterprise when she was aboard, or something along those lines? Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added. Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Soon after Vash's arrival, the station begins to experience power drains similar to those experienced by Dax's runabout.
 * A couple issues here. First, you forgot to mention in the beginning of the plot that Dax's runabout underwent power drains. Second, you're repeating the same words in the same sentence, such as "experience...experienced".  There are any number of ways to alternately word this, but I'll provide one example: "Soon after Vash's arrival, the station is subjected to power drains similar to those undergone by Dax's runabout."  Of course, any word you choose will probably work, just don't repeat them. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've re-worded a little to mention the power drains in the previous paragraph, and then trimmed that sentence at the start of the second. I also realised I hadn't linked runabout at the first mention, so moved that link up to the first line. Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, but I found and fixed a few issues. I should also point out that the plot fails to mention that Q and Vash made up, and that Quark and Vash proposed a business partnership trafficking in archaeological artefacts, but I think it's fine for now. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Production

 * Why aren't you using subsections to split the material into categories? I suppose you can get away with one long section, but I see development and filming, and post-production, but you would probably have to move things around. The benefit of using section headings in this case, is that it forces you to structure the content rather than dumping it all willy-nilly into one section. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've split it into two subsections... but I'm not entirely convinced about the second title. Any better ideas? Miyagawa (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wolfe found writing the interactions between Q and the other characters on Deep Space Nine quite difficult
 * This is just one part of a super long sentence and could probably benefit from some punctuation; a comma here is as good as any other. In fact, you should probably split this sentence up.  In total, you've got about 70 words in the entire sentence, which might work if you were giving a lecture, but reading purposes, the reader needs a break. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've split it up now. Miyagawa (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * .... quite difficult...quite well...
 * You've got the word repetition thing going on again. Try not to repeat the same words in the same sentence. The beauty of words is that you've got a lot of them; there's no useful limit here. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I realised that the second "quite" didn't need to be there at all. Miyagawa (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Q-Less" was the final Star Trek appearance for Hetrick, and the only appearance in Deep Space Nine for John de Lancie. It was also the last Star Trek writing credit for Shearer.
 * I think that's important enough to mention in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It already is, just not all in one place. Miyagawa (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Copyedits still needed. Informal language like " So "Q-Less" had..." is unencyclopedic. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Copyedits in progress. Remember, if you are going to spell out the full name of the show or just use the abbreviation, you need to choose one or the other, not both. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Copyedits to development section complete. Some of this was very problematic.  Please review. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Copyedits to filming complete. This was a real mess. In the future, it would be far more logical to group information around the production staff and the cast separately. You've got them interwoven throughout this section and it leads to duplication.  For example, de Lancie is talking about the same thing in several paragraphs (namely the limitations of the backstory of his character in terms of the motivation behind his love for Vash).  Instead of talking about this twice (first in terms of comic timing, and later as a reflection by de Lancie), in the future, group this kind of information together. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Reception and home media release

 * "Q-Less" was first broadcast on February 8, 1993 in broadcast syndication.
 * Try not to repeat the same word twice in one sentence. "Q-Less" was first released on February 8, 1993 in broadcast syndication." Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed the first one to "shown". Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You forgot the comma after the year, which I've now fixed. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This means that it was seen by..
 * "This means" is too informal for an encyclopedia. Please reword. Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reworded. Miyagawa (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You've done a much better job of paraphrasing in this section, but I still think the quotes from Handlen and Atara Stein can be chopped down further. Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've re-edited it a bit. Miyagawa (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Still some problems in this section, which I've mostly fixed. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * More problems fixed. No idea what "called Q's calling out of this 'delightful'" is supposed to mean, so I removed it.  I suspect it had something to do with a self-reference to technobabble. I also removed the " score of six out of ten", as that kind of rating is content-less and doesn't help critical reception. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Final copyedit. Remember, if you're going to choose to use abbreviations (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT) be consistent.  In this section, you once again use both, which doesn't make sense.  There was no need to use VOY, however, because you only refer it to it once in the article, therefore the full title by itself is fine. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Criteria
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:
 * Lead: copyedits needed (see above for details)
 * Plot: copyedits needed (see above for details)
 * Production: copyedits needed (see above for details)
 * Reception and home media release: copyedits needed (see above for details)
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * WP:OVERLINK, lead
 * MOS:FILM, production. See "production" section for guidance on how to use subsections to organize the content.
 * WP:CONTRACTION
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
 * Question about the use of Amazon (see above)
 * 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:
 * Stable
 * 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:
 * Minor issues. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Passed now, but I think the production section can benefit from future improvement. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Minor issues. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Passed now, but I think the production section can benefit from future improvement. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Minor issues. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Passed now, but I think the production section can benefit from future improvement. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)