Talk:Star Trek: Phase II/GA1

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

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 14:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing this article. MWright96 (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ''([[WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE|appropriate
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ''([[WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE|appropriate
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ''([[WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE|appropriate

use]] with suitable captions)'':
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Background

 * "Afterwards it saw success in broadcast syndication," - Afterward
 * "Kaufman claimed that Paramount attributed this to the idea that science fiction fans wouldn't go see two films released so close together." - would not

Conception

 * "At the time, TOS was being broadcast on 137 stations in the United States in syndication," - I think TOS should be spelt out for consistency
 * The "s" in "radicalisation" should be a "z"

Crew and production design

 * "He described his concerns saying that he didn't want to" - did not

Cancellation

 * Delink NBC as it already link in the background sub-section