From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! ( talk · contribs) 20:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC) reply

  • It might be important to note that Vaughn Armstrong's character is killed in the episode synopsis, since he had been a recurring character.
  • "the Syrrannites, who follow the teachings of Surak, known as the father of Vulcan logic." -- You might want to explain here what kind of motive the Syrrannites might have had to attack the Federation.
  • Re-worded some of the plot, unfortunately the episode doesn't really explain what the motive is - the Syrrannites are being set up by the Vulcan government at the time who are the ones who are actually responsible for the bombing. That doesn't get properly revealed until the next episode though. Miyagawa ( talk) 19:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "The arc was created to address the differences between Vulcans seen in the early seasons of Enterprise and those seen in Star Trek series set in later periods." -- clarify how their actions are different. Like the Klingon forehead thing, I suspect this might be of interest to hardcore fans who are most likely to look at this article.
  • Was looking everywhere for a reliable source for this as it's mostly discussed by fanboys on forums - managed to find something on the official Star Trek site about Vulcans which described them being different during Enterprise. Miyagawa ( talk) 20:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "Eden FX modelled the cgi under supervision by staff visual effects supervisior Art Codron." -- CGI should be capitalized, and probably linked.
  • In either "Production" or "Reception," it might be good to note the background of the season that the episodes were trying to tie into the other Star Trek shows in order to boost ratings.
  • The list of guest actors needs a citation.
  • Two duplicate links: Michael Reilly Burke and Robert Foxworth
  • Dab links and check links tools both show no problems. Images appear to be properly licensed and I see no issues with article stability or neutrality.
Placing the article on hold pending a few improvements. — Ed! (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC) reply

All right, great! Everything seems to check out now. Passing for GA. — Ed! (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC) reply