Talk:Star Trek: Discovery season 1/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 00:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this, comments should be here soon! Kingsif (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

 * Lead looks a good length for article
 * Episode summaries look well written
 * The sentence beginning "As development and pre-production on the series continued..." is run-on and could do with being broken up
 * Similar run-on sentences needing breaking up in Development section, e.g. sentences starting "Fuller "felt he found the crucial piece of the puzzle", but...", "They announced that the production was being restructured..."
 * I have given the development section a c/e to break up the longer sentences. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Otherwise Development is good
 * In Writing, the sentence beginning "It begins six months after the prologue episodes..." may need more clarification
 * Writing section has some run-on sentences, too, the one that really needs breaking up is the final sentence of the subsection
 * Writing section could have a tighter focus, it is about writing but seems to discuss this more in terms of themes and concepts, rather than discussing it in terms of writing process - phrasing, really
 * I have reorganised the writing section into three paragraphs focused on the the overall story arc, the structure of the season, and the more thematic stuff. I have also tried to cut down on longer sentences and quotes. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The info in the first two paragraphs of Casting seems scattered, perhaps these could do with some restructuring
 * The casting section is split into main cast, recurring cast, and characters returning from previous series. This lines up with the cast list above and the standard approach for large cast lists per the TV MOS. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With the sentence "He added that the Klingons being bald was a "mandate" from Fuller.", 'mandate' is not being used correctly; "was mandated by Fuller" may be what's meant.
 * Fixed. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The sentence starting "Recurring design elements for the Klingons' weapons and armor..." - I'm not sure this is an actual sentence, and I certainly don't know what it means.
 * I have re-written this to try clarify. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorporation of quotes could definitely be improved throughout.
 * Writing quality alright, but I would recommend at least going over it all, if not a full copyedit.
 * I've given the design section a general c/e. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The definition of 'bottle episode' is not "filmed solely on existing sets"; it's 'set within a limited area'. Editing needed to clarify this, because the way it's written is factually incorrect.
 * I disagree that the way the term is being used here is incorrect, but I have adjusted the sentence to more accurately reflect the source. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "are being released in 2018" needs updating.
 * Updated. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Broadcast breach" could have a more indicative title, suggestions in Coverage
 * See my thoughts below. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can wikilink Matt Zoller Seitz
 * Done. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviews could be curated thematically, though the section is written quite well it currently seems 'organized' at random
 * The reviews are roughly organized from more positive to less positive over the first two paragraphs (for the early reviews), and then additional reviews to get the rest of the season in the third paragraph. I tried to focus more on getting small snippets from many reviewers rather than in-depth discussion as I don't want to bog the section down in lots of quotes and for me there were no stand out thematic discussions throughout the reviews that could support a more analytic discussion section. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Needs work

Coverage

 * The lead seems more about the development of the season, rather than an overview of the article
 * I have re-written the lead to put less emphasis on the development section. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good depth of episode coverage
 * In-depth coverage of development in its subsection
 * Writing subsection seems to cover the season
 * The Voq explanation in Casting is a bit too detailed, perhaps cut it back to 'Latif also portrayed Voq later in the season' or similar.
 * I don't think two sentences is too detailed for a reasonably complicated situation. 'Latif also portrayed Voq later in the season' is not accurate, he played both characters at the same time but one of them was secretly. That is why the extra explanation is necessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Mirror Universe part of the Design subsection probably needs a little explanation of how the Terran relates to the Mirror, because readers who don't know will find these unrelated and the jump from info to info confusing.
 * I've re-written this to try explain it more, but the idea of having the episode summaries first and the wikilinks to more details is that we hopefully shouldn't need to do too much explaining of plot-y stuff like this. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Klingons subsection extensive
 * The info from where it says "For a sequence where L'Rell and Tyler are shown having sex..." belongs on that episode's page, not here; it's a very specific moment (30 seconds in the entire season), and does not warrant taking up a third of the whole filming section. (Coverage is also about appropriate weight)
 * There isn't a separate episode article for this which is why it is here for now. I have cut down on it a bit to address the weighting problem. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Marketing coverage seems good
 * If/when the episode 'Choose Your Pain' gets a page, the "Broadcast breach" section info belongs there (for now, could use a better header, perhaps 'Space broadcast controversy' or '"Choose Your Pain" broadcast controversy').
 * I honestly don't see the need to make the header so specific. "controversy" is a pretty strong word for what happened, based on the info we have in the section, and adding the episode title or broadcaster would just be unnecessary disambiguation since there are no other sections about anything like it. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Needs attention

Illustration

 * Nice use of chart
 * Episode tables used well
 * Good choice to collapse track lists
 * Nice spread of images
 * Fair use image in body used well
 * Pass

Neutrality

 * Seems fair
 * Pass

Verifiability

 * Isn't Ain't It Cool News a gossip site?
 * I wouldn't generally go out of my way to use it, but it is being used for a direct interview here so it is preferable to use them than someone else reporting on their interview with second-hand knowledge I guess. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Rest of the sources look good (for purposes)
 * Everything seems to be cited
 * Pass

Stability

 * History looks good
 * Pass

Copyright

 * Check looks good
 * Fair use cover image in infobox and design development image, seem to have good rationale
 * Other images from commons
 * Pass

Overall

 * Some issues, the writing quality is wobbly. Kingsif (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Kingsif, thanks for taking the time to review this! I have worked through your points above and made some changes. I've responded to specific points above where required. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies, it all looks pretty good now - I'll give it a good read and be back in a few minutes, nice quick work, so thanks for that :) Kingsif (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol support vote.svg Looks good, and I agree with your arguments. Reading the article, it all seems to work well - well done! Kingsif (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks again! - adamstom97 (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)