Jump to content

Talk:Initiations (Star Trek: Voyager)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 10:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Would prefer " is the second episode of the second season, and eighteenth episode overall"
  • Any reason Chakotay isn't linked in the lead?
  • Similarly Kazon, the first time around at least?
  • "from the pilot" link suitably.
  • Who are Taylor and Piller? Perhaps say "from screenwriters Taylor ...."?
  • "(63–70%) " not sure what this means, nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the article.
  • "the infamous shooting location" why infamous? And again, "infamous" isn't noted anywhere else in the article beside the lead.
  • Do we put association affiliations after people's names in episode info boxes? Looks very odd.
  • Plot is unreferenced, and I believe that to be commonplace, all besides the star date, why is that picked out?
  • "Kazon-Ogla" should be "Kazon–Ogla".
  • "he's attacked" avoid contractions, so "he is attacked"
  • "Chakotay beams the young Kar aboard" followed by "Captured by a Kazon vessel, Chakotay..." pretty quick turn around of events here.
  • "that he is scheduled for execution" who is? It's unclear with the preceding text.
  • "to the planet's surface to rescue Chakotay. On the moon" planet or moon?
  • "didn't care " again, avoid contractions.
  • "it should've" should have.
  • In the lead "street gang" was linked, in the body, just "gang" of street gang is linked. Be consistent.
  • "he was simply given the part because of his " -> "he was given the part simply because of his"
  • "couldn't find" could not.
  • No need to link acting coach, particularly as we don't have an article (nor should we probably, more of a dictionary definition).
  • "would fondly recall " why not just "fondly recalled"
  • "crew who'd " who had.
  • "to goof around" is not encyclopaedic unless you're quoting it, in which case it needs to be in quote marks.
  • "would call", "would praise"... why not "called", "praised"?
  • "Robert Beltran (Chakotay) said " you've already introduced both him and his character name before, stick to surnames only.
  • "would call the" -> "called the".
  • Ref 9, no need for the SHOUTING.

A few issues to resolve, so I'll put it on hold for a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go line-by-line if you don't mind.
  • Is there any reason you'd prefer it that way? I used the current format on "Tuvix" and received no similar feedback. Just curious.
  • The lede was written in piecemeal, so that's why Chakotay and Kazon weren't linked in the first paragraph.
  • linked "the pilot" to Caretaker (Star Trek: Voyager)
  • elaborated on the identities of Taylor and Pillar in the lede
  • 63–70% is derived from the ratings in the reception section. 2.5/4 stars – 7/10 rating. I used the same tact on "Tuvix".
  • I simply removed "infamous".
  • I don't know if there's an SOP for it or not. Again, I employed it at "Tuvix" and didn't receive any pushback on it.
  • I know if we're writing biographies we may list their honours, e.g. knighthoods, congressional medals of honour, etc, but this just means the individual is a member of a society, many of us could claim that, surely? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I remember correctly, the stardate wasn't discussed in the episode, but instead comes from that source. Being Star Trek, I like giving the stardate because it's so tied into the public mythos and image of the franchise.
  • Should it be? I know to use n-dashes with ranges of numbers, but every source I looked up only hyphenated it.
  • contractions expanded
  • It really was, in the episode. He beams over the young man, and then is almost immediately found and captured by the larger mothership. Without being superfluously wordy, I don't know what to change.
  • clarified with "the young Kazon"
  • Good catch, it's a moon.
  • didn't and should've expanded
  • linked [[gang|street gang]]
  • reworded
  • couldn't expanded
  • unlinked acting coach
  • just a verbose turn of phrase I lean on; I changed it
  • who'd expanded
  • No, it's not a quote, but I couldn't figure out a better way to phrase it. Do you have any suggestions?
  • made concise
  • Is that a once-per-article rule? I duplicate such parentheticals when I feel it's been a while and the reader may've forgotten.
  • called
  • For accuracy, I always copy titles and such exactly. Should that be "Taylor, J. MSS" or "Taylor, J. Mss" and is there an SOP for that?
I'm happy you took a look over this article for me, and please get back to me with any further corrections or questions! — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I note a few of your answers relate to things not being picked up or not being mentioned in a previous GAN of yours. I'm afraid I tend to review things as a blank page (in my mind) so all comments come from there. If I can find SOPs for you, I'll let you know, otherwise in general most review comments come from my experiences at FAC and FLC. I'll respond to your comments in-line shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following up.
  • I copied and pasted your phrasing into the article.
  • I removed the parentage ranking from the lede.
  • I removed the association letters from the info box.
  • I tweaked the wording in the second paragraph of the plot.
  • The source actually says to "just goofing around the whole time."
  • I used the capitalization you suggested for the capitalized citation.
It turns out I reused a citation when I actually should have inserted a new one from the same source, so I made that adjustment, too. Do you have any other suggestions or concerns? — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]