Wikipedia:Peer review/Encounter at Farpoint/archive1

Encounter at Farpoint
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see if its got potential for a FA run. I've only had two failed FA nominations previously but those were over a year ago and both dog breed articles. Fortunately I had quite a thorough GA reviewer who helped fix quite a few prose errors and trim some unneeded trivia from the article.

Thanks, Miyagawa   (talk)  17:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Lead


 * "First episode and season premiere" seems a bit redundant. I see what you're doing, trying to get the wikilinks for the list of episodes and for series premiere both in there, but I just don't think you have to.
 * A few notes on the clarity of the plot summary sentence in the lead:
 * You can probably divide the plot summary sentence a little bit to make it clearer. For example, the structure of the sentence doesn't make it clear what is "under the gaze" of Q: The Bandi people, or the crew of the Enterprise.
 * You'll want to find a way to italicize Enterprise here, as per WP:NC-SHIP. Looks like you've done okay in the rest of the article.
 * If left as is, you'll want to change "examine" to "examines", since crew is singular. You'll also want to add a comma after "Farpoint Station".
 * It seems as though it would be totally fair to mention the captain of the ship in the lead, especially since this is the first episode of the series.
 * "episode was made as a pilot" seems like it could just be "episode was the pilot"
 * "was a double length episode" - Because "episode" is already at the beginning of the sentence, it sounds a little repetitive here. Maybe replace with something like "was double the average episode length". But then again, is the episode considered two parts? If so, that would be a clearer way of stating it. If they're never shown separately and always referred to as the same episode, you could say it's double length, but if they're two parts, it might be a good idea to say it here.
 * "The show utilized some existing sets and props" - Sweet jeepers, thank you for using the word "utilize" correctly. That has to be one of the few times were "utilize" is more appropriate than "use".
 * "an assessment which was upheld by critics reassessing the episode following the end of the entire series" - I think I get what you're saying here, but it's a little awkward to read.
 * Remember to include something about home media in the lead. Every section should at least something mentioned here.


 * Plot


 * Some things about the first sentence:
 * Maybe wikilink drydock. Someone who has no knowledge of naval terms may actually think it's a term related to the show.
 * Delete ", both"
 * Even if we're talking about a fictional people, it's probably not a good idea to refer to any group as "simple", sounds a bit condescending.
 * Comma after "simple Bandi people"
 * This sentence is quite long, and might benefit from being split into a couple of different thoughts. As it is, five commas sort of drag it out a bit.
 * You'll want to move your wikilink for United Federation of Planets from the second mention in this sentence (at the end) to the first (at the beginning).
 * "being put on trial" - by whom? If it's the Q continuum doing it you might want to clarify. If nobody knows, this is fine as is. (I just purchased my copy of the first season on Blu-ray the other day, but haven't watched it yet, sorry.)
 * You can probably split the next sentence too, around where the dash is currently.
 * Either way, you'll want a comma after "The Brothers Karamazov".
 * "The crew is suspicious of how certain items they desire appear moments after they look away and are unable to identify the power source that feeds the station" These are two different thoughts and can probably also be split.
 * "others of the crew" - "other members of the crew"
 * "its explorations" - "to explore"
 * "begins to fire upon" - "fires upon"
 * "able to deduce the mystery" - "deduces"


 * Production
 * Conception and development history


 * Since this article is about the first episode specifically, I'm not sure how much of this particular subsection should really be here. The page for Star Trek: The Next Generation has a bit of production history for the show in general, and some of this information might be better suited for that article rather than this one. The third paragraph here seems fine to include here, though.
 * The first sentence could probably be "swapped" to make it active rather than passive. In other words, "On [date], [person] announced [event]." rather than "[event] was announced on [date] by [person]." You'll want to look around for a few more of these peppered throughout the article.
 * "Star Trek for Paramount, the" - either a semicolon where the comma is now or start a new sentence.
 * "failed series" implies that the series was filmed, aired, and yet had bad ratings and thus failed. But Phase II was never filmed, so I think you'll want to find a new phrase for that.
 * "twenty six hour" - "26 hour" or possibly "26-hour"
 * Comma after "production crew"
 * Delete "taking place"
 * Delete "subsequently"
 * "hour long" - "hour-long"
 * Casting


 * "unlikely to be practical" - "not practical"
 * "retread" - Is this Roddenberry's term that he used specifically? If not, it probably shouldn't be in quotes.
 * Comma after "with a hairpiece"
 * Italicize "'Star Trek'" in Stewarts quote.
 * "favourite" - Since this is an American show with American roots, I would think the U.S. spelling would be more appropriate here.
 * "was suggested to" - Not sure if that works. "was asked to" perhaps?
 * Comma after "cast as Wesley Crusher"
 * "play at the time," need to replace the comma here with a semicolon or start a new sentence
 * ""A big guy" - lower case "a" here.
 * Filming


 * "Due to what was seen as a low budget for the pilot and series in general" - This sort of throws in some subjectivity where there shouldn't be any. If the budget was relatively low compared to similar productions, you can include that. If it was "seen as a low budget" by the filming crew, you can include that.
 * Delete "due to the volume of cats living on the lot" since we kind of know where cat feces come from.
 * Delete "in the new series"
 * "The main engineering set from Star Trek III became the new main engineering set," sounds redundant.
 * Not sure what "for the sake of reliability," means.
 * The use of the name of the episode twice in the same sentence sounds awkward. The second use can probably be replaced by "this episode".
 * The previous sentence about the cast worrying about job stability should probably be at the end of this section.
 * Reception


 * Delete "both"
 * "several locations" - Typically, in the TV world, these are called "Markets", not locations.
 * No comma after "The Herald Journal,"
 * Delete "itself"
 * Lanford's comments probably need to be restructured so that the first comments don't seem so terse and the other parts don't run on as they do right now.
 * Comma after TV Guide
 * Generally speaking, a few comments from critics are okay, but you'll really want a more general feel for the overall critics' feelings (like Sirtis' comments at the end of the paragraph) rather than a laundry list of critics comments.
 * Something not right with "watched reassessed"
 * The way the sentence is structured right now it reads as though Green was disappointed with the "lack of sense of fun". Awkward syntax.
 * Comma after "elements of the episode".
 * Delete "overall"
 * Home Media


 * Delete "subsequently"
 * Perhaps better than saying "region one" would be to give the actual locations (most likely the U.S. and Canada) where it was released.
 * "involved the original production team in updating some of the special effects in the episode" - Awkward syntax here.
 * Comma after "sampler of the series"
 * The phrase "along with two other episodes" probably fits better in the sentence after "featured".
 * "Blu-Ray" - "Blu-ray"

Of course, none of the above should be considered as demands or anything of the sort. Mostly, these are just an issue of clarity, making sure the sentences sound the same to others as they do to you. All that said, the article covers all of the major bases and it's worth being proud of, so don't let my nitpicking get you down. Best of luck on getting this up to FAC, and please let me know if you have any questions or need further help. Runfellow (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointers! Miyagawa   (talk)  18:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)