Talk:Ro Laren/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk ·01:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I always enjoy reading articles about fictional characters on here and this one seems very interesting. I keep meaning to watch and learn more about Star Trek so this is a great place to do a little bit of that. I will have my review up in a day or two at the latest. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead and infobox
 * Add an alt. for the image in the infobox.
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Please eliminate the “Partner” and “Children” parameters from the infobox as they are not being used.
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Eliminate the reference to the episode “Ensign Ro" in the first paragraph. It is not necessary for the introduction of the character. It is also repetitive as you introduce the episode in the first sentence of the second paragraph, and it would be better if you first use and link the episode there.
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As someone who is not seen much of Star Trek, I am not sure what you mean by “conn officer”. The link you have leads to the page about “flight controller”.
 * Not a massive amount I can add while keeping it succinct for the lead. I have added that it is on the bridge. Basically the conn officer in Star Trek is the pilot. I just realised I'd linked to the wrong thing! Should be Conn (nautical) instead. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I was just confused, because I was not sure about the connection with the previous link. Your edit clarified this a lot. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Revise “She was initially used by” to “She was initially assigned by”. Used is an odd verb choice for a person.
 * Rephrased. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Spell out non-canon as non-canonical
 * Done - and in the article as well. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Captain in the phrase “Captain of the station” does not need to be capitalized.
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarify the following sentence: “Reviewers discussed the religious views of Ro, comparing her and Kira's reaction to the Cardassian occupation.” What do you mean by Kira's reaction? And Cardassian occupation would not be understood by someone how has not seen the show.
 * I've trimmed that further for the purpose of the lead, with the full explanation coming in the article body itself. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by “against the existing characters”? The phrasing is a little awkward.
 * Redrafted. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Concept and development
 * Image requires an alt. description
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You use “at odds with” twice in close proximity in the first paragraph so I would suggest rephrasing this.
 * Removed the first one. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Add a descriptive phrase in front of Dara to briefly inform readers about the identity of this character.
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am assuming you mean “created for her” instead of “created on her”.
 * Actually - on her. I've added something in the following paragraph to make that more clear. Westmore applied a prosthetic to her and designed it on her face. This ended up becoming in the Bajoran makeup used throughout DS9 (although it was slightly modified to make it easier to apply en-mass to extras). Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, especially in the context of prosthetics, but I just wanted to double-check. I apologize for my mistake Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not entirely sure what you mean in the photo’s caption. How does Forbes serve as an inspiration for the make-up? The section reads that Westmore wanted to make the character look different from the crew while still preserving her appearance (I'm assuming this means to keep her "attractive"), and I do not connect this as Forbes inspiring the make-up. The caption is implying there was much a larger role between the actress and make-up process, then there appears to be from at least what I know. I could be misreading this or missing something though.
 * Inspired is too strong - I've modified it to simply say she was the first. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I would recommend rephrasing the first sentence of the third paragraph as it reads somewhat awkwardly.
 * I've trimmed it. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there any more information on why Forbes’ agent had warned them to stay away from her? It seems like a pretty extreme response, so I was wondering if there was more information to expand about this.
 * I did some searching and couldn't find anything else on it. Forbes has never talked about it in interviews, that I've since found. There certainly is an unusual gap unexplained in the series, but it's purely conjecture. Forbes appears throughout season fifth in several episodes, and then only appears once in the sixth episode (which in itself was a held over production from season 5). Then nothing until the second to last episode of season 7. A general ban from contacting the actress during that period would explain it. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, this was intended more as a suggestion than a requirement (I should have noted that in my original comment) as I was curious about this when reading it. It makes sense in the article so it works. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Change “planned for promoted” to “planned for her to be promoted”
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The transition ”as while she liked…” does not make any sense. I would recommend revising the sentence with this phrase and possibly cutting into two different sentences.
 * I've cut into two sentences as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ”This became Kira Nerys” is an awkward way of introducing the character and describing how she was created. I would suggest changing this. Also the "they" in the previous sentence is very vague. Who are you referring to in this? I would suggest re-examining this section.


 * Appearances
 * Very strong and thorough section. I do not see any major issues.


 * Themes
 * I am assuming Bajor is a planet, but please clarify this.
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am also assuming Star Trek as Myth is a book, but also clarify this.
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I would recommend combining both paragraphs. The break is very awkward as you introduce a writer in the last sentence, only to fully develop his ideas in the next paragraph. That and the two paragraphs are pretty short and focus on similar ideas already.
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Reception
 * I recommend combining the first two paragraphs as I do not see a need to separate the two critics. I think the last two paragraphs can also be combined as they both focus on the polls.
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Final comments
 * You have done an amazing job with this article. It was a very informative read. Let me know if you have any questions or comments about my review. My review addresses only minor or nitpicky comments. Once you address them, this should be a quick and easy pass. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. It was an enjoyable article to write, and one I'd been meaning to expand for a while. She's one of my favourite characters, and I thought it was rather sad that they couldn't at least get her to recur during the Maquis period of Deep Space Nine. I rather hope that in the new Trek series, they might wander past Deep Space Nine at some point and find Ro in charge of the station without any explanation. Certainly Forbes is now willing to do television. I guess we'll see come January! Miyagawa (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding to my review so quickly. I have added some comments to the review above. It is always sad when a character that you really enjoy does not get featured as much as you would like. I definitely know that feeling. That would be really cool if they revisited the character for at least one episode in the new television series. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you! Otherwise, great work as always. This is a definite ✅!