Talk:We'll Always Have Paris (Star Trek: The Next Generation)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 03:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be taking this review. I will use the template below to assess the article against the criteria. Please mark your edits on the review page as Done when they are addressed. If there are any issues please let me know here or at my talk page. Thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 03:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have now mostly completed my revew. I'll put this on hold for a week and see what improvements we can make. Thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Is it neccessary to repeat the [2] reference in the lead as it is mentioned elsewhere in the article? I had to look it up, but I knew I had read somewhere that quotes needed direct citations - even in the lead. It's in WP:WHYCITE. Miyagawa ([User talk:Miyagawa
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I don't feel that the plot section explains what exactly is wrong with Dr Manheim. It seems to skip from "A woman requests help to save her husband" to "Dr Manheim recovers". Could you please add some extra detail here detailing the nature of Manheims injuries? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done Added some further material and split the middle paragraph in two. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Done[reply] The article also doesn't really explain the time distortions, and the material in the lead picture isn't really explained in the article. Could you please fix this? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done I added a line to the plot giving the example of the distortion in the image. However it was just a split screen image which is fairly simple and I don't have anything technical on the formation of that particular scene, so I removed it from the infobox as I don't think it meets fair use requirements. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"Several reviewers re-watched the episode after the end of the series" Can we remove this? I don't think it is necessary to the article. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I was asked to add that in during a previous GAN due to the length of time that has passed between the original airing of the episode and the actual reviews taking place, which also allows the reviewer to view the episode in the context of the episodes which followed it. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ok then Done ★★Retro Lord ★★ 04:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "comparing certain elements of the episode to Casablanca and the series finale "All Good Things...". These included the ending where a time distortion caused a trebled Data in "We'll Always Have Paris" compared to the trebled Picard in "All Good Things...". Overall she thought that the episode was better during the re-watch than she recalled previously." This section is quite confusing in my opinion, what exactly does "a trebled Data" refer to? Also, I think the bit about "better during the re-watch" should be removed, as it seems a bit superficial and unneccessary. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done I've removed the "better" bit and re-worded the trebled part to make it... well... make sense! :) Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Serious issue, the lead picture does not appear to have a fair use rationale, unless i'm missing something. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] There was one there, but in hindsight I just don't think a split screen shot warrented a fair use image. It's a pretty common technique, and so I've removed the image from the infobox as I don't think it meets a fair use requirement. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done ★★Retro Lord ★★ 04:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass, well done ★★Retro Lord ★★ 05:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other issues remaining that I need to look at? - having a little trouble making sure as for some reason the table isn't displaying the contents of the comments column correctly. Miyagawa (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think there is anything else to be done. But ill take one final look tonight. On my end, all the contents show up as pending and I have to go to the edit screen to read them. Are you getting that? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep same thing, but if I go into edit I can see the actual comments there. Miyagawa (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PASS! Well done. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 05:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]