Talk:Where no man has gone before/GA1

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

In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of June 10, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Fails WP:LEAD, with only 3 sentences and a quote. The lead does not establish why this phrase is notable and gives little real-world context. Fails WP:WAF, with too much in-universe material that, again, does not give enough real-world context.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Article contains numerous unsourced statements, obvious original research (particularly the entire fictional backstory section), and uses a variety of unreliable sources including Memory Alpha (another wiki), IMDB (user edited), music-city.org (user edited) and several WP:COPYRIGHT violating sites with the links to the episode transcripts and game manual downloads.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article has little content beyond some unsourced OR, and a rather rambling, long winded tracing of the phrases use in the series that has little coherence nor structure. Its only other section is a trivia section that is, again, primarily OR.
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Has no images and needs none, so no problem.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * As noted above, this article has been delisted as a good article. It massively fails the bulk of the good article criteria. In particularly, the amounts of unsourced statements and original research within this article and the use of illegal content cannot be ignored. I do not believe this issue can be fixed within a reasonable time frame, and its original GA review was, quite frankly, a joke. In truth, this article should not even exist. While one might make a borderline case that it meets WP:N, when reduced to the only factual, verifiable content, all that is left is a small paragraph that should probably be merged to Star Trek. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * As noted above, this article has been delisted as a good article. It massively fails the bulk of the good article criteria. In particularly, the amounts of unsourced statements and original research within this article and the use of illegal content cannot be ignored. I do not believe this issue can be fixed within a reasonable time frame, and its original GA review was, quite frankly, a joke. In truth, this article should not even exist. While one might make a borderline case that it meets WP:N, when reduced to the only factual, verifiable content, all that is left is a small paragraph that should probably be merged to Star Trek. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)