Talk:Early life and career of Gene Roddenberry/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 10:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

Please comment, BELOW this entire Image review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

1. File:Gene Roddenberry crop.jpg Y
2. File:Gene Roddenberry 1939.JPG Y
3. File:Cessna AT-17.jpg Y
4. File:B-17 flying over Pacific Ocean.jpg = {{not done}} = how do we know this one was a US government photo? Not seeing that confirmed in the source link.
5. File:LAPD Sergeant-1.jpg = Y
6. File:LAPD Police Officer-3.jpg = Y

Just one issue noted, above. — Cirt (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• I hadn't thought about that - I've swapped it out with an alternative image which has clearer sourcing. Miyagawa (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, thank you. Next, on to Stability assessment. — Cirt (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. — Cirt (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I've tracked that questionable image down to "The Army Air Forces In World War II, Volume Six, Men and Planes", originally prepared by the USAF Historical Division, reprint by the University of Chicago Press with the note that, "With the exception of editing, the work is the product of the United States government." More at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:B-17 flying over Pacific Ocean.jpg. -- ToE 03:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Stability assessment

1. Upon inspection of article edit history, I see it was split off from another article, but going back to beginning of this page = no issues.
2. Article talk page similarly and pleasantly devoid of conflict.

 Done. Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Rest of GA Review

NOTE: Please respond, below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The writing style is clear and concise. I especially like the selective and limited use of quotations, much less than I've been seeing in other GA candidates lately, which is refreshing.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Very good lede intro section. The layout presentation is in a good format. Recommendation: Change Los Angeles Police Department and his nascent television writing career (1949–1956) subsect header to Police service and burgeoning writing career, for simplicity.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Incredibly meticulously sourced to very high quality sources, throughout the entire article.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	During his time with the airline, he took two extension courses at Columbia University in the spring of 1946. -- please add a cite here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Relies upon secondary sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good focus within the specified time period.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No problems with focus, as mentioned, above.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Written in neutral tone with matter-of-fact presentation, throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues here, per above.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues here, per above.
	7. Overall assessment.	I've placed this page as GA on Hold, for a time period of Seven Days... — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I've placed this page as GA on Hold, for a time period of Seven Days... — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the section title as recommended, and added that cite (I split the paragraph and forgot to pipe the citation). Miyagawa (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Pass as GA

Pass as GA. Thanks for being so polite and responsive to my recommendations, above. Good job, — Cirt (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)