(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) 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);[2] and
Except for the prose quality and use of quotes in some sections, everything looks good. Will give it a fresh, second read tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now on hold as all major problems have been fixed. Minor problems waiting for Miyagawa to address below. And Miyagawa? Please review the entire article. When you're done, let me know. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the episodes in the fourth season are considered the best of the series, including "Hope and Fear", "Scorpion", "Year of Hell" and in particular "Living Witness", which was described as one of the best episodes of the series. Box sets of the season have since been released on DVD.
@Miyagawa:, is there a rhyme or reason to the order of this list of episodes? And, is it necessary to mention the availability of the box set in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of "Living Witness" (as it expands slightly on that), the others have now been re-ordered into broadcast order. Also, I've removed the box set bit from the lead. Miyagawa (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plot overview
@Miyagawa: I'm not exactly familiar with how GA plot overviews work for season articles, but my guess is that this one is a bit too sparse. There's no mention of species 8472, the reason Kes left the ship, B'Elanna's efforts to get back in touch with her roots and at the same time her struggle to control her anger, the Doctor's continuing exploration of what it means to be photonic on a ship of organics, the installation of the Astrometrics lab, the temporal war of the Krenim Imperium, and the cloning of the crew by the silver blood on the Demon planet (which we find more about in the fifth season). Given these important story arcs (and I'm probably missing a lot), I think the current plot overview is just too short. Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the plot section - I thought all I was being all smart by adding the Year of Hell as well, but it turns out you mentioned it already! So I feel far less impressed with myself now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Miyagawa:, excellent work! You're really good at this. It's going to need some simple copyedits (which I'm going to do right now), but great job. I'll try and have this review finished by tonight. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Piller left the staff of Voyager after the third season. He had previously been used as a consultant script editor for the series,[10] and went on to work with Rick Berman on the script of the film Star Trek: Insurrection (1998).
@Miyagawa: Thanks, but it still doesn't make any sense. The sentence "Piller later credited his departure for the creation of the episode "Distant Origin" as he would not have agreed with the structure of the episode" doesn't impart any meaning. What does "credited his departure for the creation" mean, actually? Please try to rewrite it again into something readers like me can comprehend. Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This external analysis has been previously used in Star Trek with Spock in Star Trek: The Original Series and Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Braga felt that this element had been missing from the show.
@Miyagawa: I think I know what you are trying to say, but I wonder if you could try to clear it up a bit, perhaps by replacing "this external analysis" with something a bit more specific. I thought you were talking about the use of backstory, so I'm not clear what the term "external analysis" means here, and I'm afraid that might be true for our readers as well. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I opted for the phrase "external analysis" here - but I've swapped it out with something more obvious as to what the source is referring to and I've restructured the sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accolades
You had the order of episodes reversed here for some strange reason, so I fixed that ("Year of Hell" then "The Killing Game"). Lots of problems with dead links here. I've managed to spend some time hunting them down and fixing them. In the one instance I wasn't able to find a new link, I added a different source in its place.[1]Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that.
Notes
The two dead links to Seattle Post-Intelligencer via Highbeam make me think that Highbeam no longer carries those articles. They are still verifiable through the SPI archive (which links to News Library). If that is the case, I'm wondering if the Highbeam label should be removed. The citation is still verifiable though the normal channels. I've checked other Wikipedia articles that cite SPI through Highbeam and they have dead links as well. Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the deadlinks and added the missing information from the SPI archive. There wasn't a clear direct link (only a purchase link) so I haven't included a URL. This is the first time that a HighBeam article has vanished on me, but I guess it was lucky that it is at least somewhere else. Miyagawa (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it might have had something to do with the alleged financial problems faced by SPI a few years back. It's possible HighBeam pulled their articles because they weren't getting paid to host them. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References
What's the point of keeping Nemecek as a separate reference when you only cite it once? Why not cite it and the relevant page number in the same section, and change notes to a general "References" section? Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Pass