Talk:Too Short a Season/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 03:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Got this one!  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note to say that I added an extra paragraph on the makeup under the Production section this morning - I realised after the nomination that I'd neglected to check one of the source books. Miyagawa (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries! I should be able to get to reviewing it later today or tomorrow. Were you planning on adding anything else before I begin my review?  Ruby  2010/  2013  17:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That should be it now. It'd been a few episodes since I used the makeup book as a reference and I completely forgot it had a chapter of ageing effects used including a few paragraphs on the Jameson makeup. Miyagawa (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Plot section: links for Enterprise and Mordan IV?
 * Added - hadn't realised Mordan IV has a direct set up. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was confused by your use of MacGuffin and had to follow the link. It might be good to offer a brief definition for readers
 * Added a bracketed explanation of the term. Miyagawa (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice a lot of repetition of similar words within the same sentence that could a copy edit (See for instance "One significant change she made was to make the change..." and "...Rohner and director Rob Bowman worked together on weekends to work...")
 * Made some copyedits to reduce that. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Direct quotes should immediately be followed by a citation
 * I don't normally miss those, and then found I'd missed it twice here. Fixed now. Miyagawa (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes Trek Today and Tower Video reliable sources? I'm not familiar with them.
 * Trek Today is part of TrekNation, which is a long-standing website owned by UGO Networks and the Hearst Corporation. It had been previously used in the successful FA nomination of These Are the Voyages..., which included articles by Michelle Green (the reviewer here). Tower Video is an imprint of Tower Records which was a massive international chain which went into bankruptcy back in 2006 and now only exists online. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Trek Today is part of TrekNation, which is a long-standing website owned by UGO Networks and the Hearst Corporation. It had been previously used in the successful FA nomination of These Are the Voyages..., which included articles by Michelle Green (the reviewer here). Tower Video is an imprint of Tower Records which was a massive international chain which went into bankruptcy back in 2006 and now only exists online. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Any insight on the meaning behind the title?
 * No reference in any of the sources I've seen. I can presume that it's a reference to old age, but nothing independent has stated as such. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Any ratings data out there you can use?
 * I've never been able to find any specific information on the ratings for TNG apart from general references to the series doing well for a syndicated series. Its because of the syndicated distribution of the show. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never been able to find any specific information on the ratings for TNG apart from general references to the series doing well for a syndicated series. Its because of the syndicated distribution of the show. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Some recent edits but that's to be expected as it was recently nominated. Nothing I see as a strike against promotion.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Some recent edits but that's to be expected as it was recently nominated. Nothing I see as a strike against promotion.


 * 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 (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * One non-free image is used. You might think about boosting the rationale for it, but otherwise I think it is suitable for providing a visual aid on the episode's make-up, which receives commentary
 * Added some further information to the rationale. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Added some further information to the rationale. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

The above comments are a preliminary review. The article is close to passing but there are just a few issues that need to be resolved first. Please post here when you have fixed the issues or have responded to my comments. Well done bringing the article from this to its current state!  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your changes look good. I spotchecked the Den of Geek and A.V. Club reviews and found no issues (the former was an amusing read for someone who hasn't seen the series!) Passing for GA. Nice work!  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)