Jump to content

Talk:Star Trek: The God Thing/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: Seattle (talk · contribs) 13:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can review this soon. Seattle (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • For Reeves-Stevens (1997), I think this should be Reeves-Stevens and Reeves-Stevens (1997), to represent two authors.
  • @Seattle: Thanks, I've given it a copy edit - I'm not sure what had happened as there was some sections that had been moved around, one which had lost a citation and well... some of my typical mistakes (repetition of certain words and too many "However,"'s etc). Hopefully I'm eliminated those now. Sorry for the delay - I got distracted by work on the Gene Roddenberry and associated articles. Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Seattle and Miyagawa: Looks like this review has stalled. You two still working on it?--Dom497 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done what has been asked in the review so far. Miyagawa (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've gone through with a copy-edit. Here are a few remaining comments:

  • Roddenberry wasn't enthusiastic about the idea I thought he was dead? Aside from the first and last sentences of this paragraph, it needs a copy-edit.
  • Roddenberry opposed the story in the film I'm not sure what this means
  • Roddenberry's rejection of Star Trek V Did he reject The God Thing or the movie?
  • In his book, Jewish Themes in Star Trek, Rabbi Yonassan Gershom states that the two are different in their approach, saying that Roddenberry wanted to disprove God's existence whereas the William Shatner directed The Final Frontier sought to take God seriously with the novelization of the film showing that the original intention in the film was to show all manner of religious expression on the final showdown with the God-like figure in Sha-Ka-Ree I don't know what you're trying to say here, but it needs a copy-edit
  • The last paragraph of "Novelization" and the entire "Reception and legacy" section need a copy-edit, from a third-party source. Otherwise, if the prose doesn't shape up, I'm failing this GAN. Seattle (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa: What progress have you made progress on these comments? Seattle (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable passing this as its currently written. Get this article copy-edited from a third-party source, and renominate. Formally, I'm failing this due to section 1(a) of the good article criteria, which states that prose must be "clear and concise". Seattle (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]