Talk:The Magicks of Megas-tu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 16:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I will review this. Ruby 2010/2013 16:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article is definitely in good shape! :) Mostly nitpicks below:

• I think you should capitalize Devil (per the standard seen in that article)
  • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• I'm having a little trouble following the plot. Are Kirk and his crew transported to 17th century America, or are they staying on Megas-Tu? And why would the Megans try Lucien? It's not clear to me, since presumably the Megans are fine with magic (whereas the Salem Witch Trials were not fine with magic).
  • I've made some modifications that should clarify that. Miyagawa (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• "impressed by the Captain's gesture" -- Captain should be lowercase
  • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• You mention that Lucien is Lucifer twice in the plot section. Could you trim the first mention, or is this important to know early on?
  • I trimmed the first version. Miyagawa (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• "He returned home and started work on the script immediately, wanting to improve it far beyond the point that he had developed when he pitched it for The Original Series." -- make clear who you're talking about here (Brody presumably)
  • Modified the "he" to Brody. Miyagawa (talk)
• Since this is an American show, shouldn't it be written with AmEng? I see "realised" and a few other instances of BrEng.
  • I've fixed that one - alas I'm British and I don't know all the differences. Miyagawa (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• "Fontana was aware of the controversial content of the episode, and later said that some people felt that the episode dealt with the devil sympathetically, but believed that it was a good episode." -- could you rewrite this so that "episode" is not being used three times?
  • Edited to remove two instances of it. Miyagawa (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Since all critical reviews of the episode were written years later, I think it would be good for context if you included the dates for each review.
  • Done. I used to do this for all articles, but I got out of the habit somehow. Miyagawa (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• I'm having trouble following your summary of Hoffman's review. Why would he need to recite the dialogue in the episode? He also describes the episode as the "weirdest", which may be something worth including in the article.
  • I've gone through and edited that review. Miyagawa (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• The article includes just two reviews. I know it can be difficult to find reviews of such old episodes. but I found these (not sure if they're reliable or not): [1] [2]
  • Thanks, I've added those two. In fact the opposite views play off each other quite well. Miyagawa (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

That's it for now! I'll place the article on hold for the standard seven days. Please write here when responding, as I have this on my watchlist. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 01:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good! Passing for GA. Ruby 2010/2013 00:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)