Talk:Coming of Age (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

References

Are all the reference notes in here really necessary? They're distracting, and all the information in the article can be learned just by watching the episode in question. I mean, I could understand having references and a bibliography if it was, say, a biography of Thomas Jefferson, but it's a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. Branddobbe 07:22, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

All of the refrences deleted save for the last part. Thirteen 22:52, September 18, 2004 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coming of Age (Star Trek: The Next Generation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 01:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Review in progress...

Lead

Resolved

• Copyedit OK.

Plot

Resolved

• Remmick tension of the crew, particularly when he questions the trustworthiness of the senior staff based on their personal logs and past actions.
  • "Remmick tension of the crew"? You appear to be missing a word or phrase here. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed to "Remmick's query causes tension in the crew", but feel free to change it to whatever works for you. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Copyedit OK.

Production

Resolved

• The creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry, had specified in the series bible that there should be "no stories with Vulcans", stating that "there must be other interesting aliens in a galaxy filled with billions of stars and planets".
  • It would help to clean this up for readability and link separation: "In the "series bible", Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, specified that stories about Vulcans should be avoided because "there must be other interesting aliens in a galaxy filled with billions of stars and planets"." I think he also said that the reason these stories should be avoided is because TOS covered this ground already and he didn't want the series to repeat itself. In any case, this is precariously close to original research as it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the episode. In such an instance, it is acceptable to add non-controversial footnotes indicating what the series bible said about Vulcans, but using this information inline presents the novel argument that Roddenberry's dictates weren't being followed. Tell me your thoughts on this. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Moved to footnote at this time. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Copyedit OK.

Reception and home media release

Resolved

• Keith DeCandido watched the episode for Tor.com, who questioned why the shuttlebay wasn't guarded, comparing it to a similar situation in The Original Series episode "The Doomsday Machine" and the sequence where the shuttle is bounced off an atmosphere to the "Premiere" episode of Farscape.'
  • Copyedit for clarity: "Writing for Tor.com, Keith DeCandido questioned why the shuttlebay wasn't guarded, comparing this situation to similar stories found in The Original Series episode "The Doomsday Machine" and in a sequence from the "Premiere" episode of Farscape where the shuttle is bounced off an atmosphere." Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Adjusted the copyedit further as he was comparing two separate scenes to two different episodes. So I've split it into different sentences. It now reads - Keith DeCandido questioned why the shuttlebay wasn't guarded, comparing it to a similar situation in The Original Series episode "The Doomsday Machine". He also felt that the sequence where the shuttle is bounced off an atmosphere resembled the "Premiere" episode of Farscape. Miyagawa (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• He said that despite Remmick being "the ultimate cliché of the jackass interrogator... And yet, I don’t actually dislike this episode and enjoy watching it."
  • This reads poorly. It could be read as "He said that", referring to the previous sentence, or it could be read as, "He said that despite Remmick being", pointing to the subsequent phrasing. It's ambiguous. Also, neither works because you don't need the "and yet". If I'm reading this right, you are trying to say, "Despite Remmick being "the ultimate cliché of the jackass interrogator", DeCandido liked the episode." Or something like that. Viriditas (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'll make some changes. Please review these changes and fix accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Copyedits OK. Feel free to change or reverse any of these. Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Lead OK

   Prose OK

   Production OK

   Reception and home media release OK

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Even though it is an internal document, add the publisher name ("Paramount Pictures") to the entry for the Star Trek: The Next Generation Writer/Director's Guide.

   Added. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   See note about the production section

   Moved to footnote OK

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All problems addressed up above. If the nominator disagrees with any of these changes, he is welcome to reverse them. Viriditas (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)