Contents

Talk:Radek Zelenka

	Radek Zelenka has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassessit.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 14, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Stargate Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Stargate task force. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

This review is transcluded from Talk:Radek Zelenka/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I will be reviewing your article Radek Zelenka for GA. After reading through it, the article looks very good. I will be adding comments below. Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing I am concerned about right away, and that is the image you are using, Image:DavidNyklAsZelenka.jpg, lacks the correct permissions.
• Another thing that I am curious about: you have notes under references that are not numbered and do not link back to their place in the article. I have not seen that before. Would it not be better to have those notes linked back to the article?
  • It's dialog from the episode immediately ref'ed above, used to support the made claims. I have used this style before in one of my FA articles (Characters of Carnivàle), and didn't get any notes on it then. The bullet points are only used because some episodes have several pieces of dialog to cite as source, but I could theoretically rm them (the bullet points, not the actual dialog) in this article. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "His planned one-off appearance..." - I have not heard the term "one-off". Is it a common term for TV episodes?
  • Nearly 1500 GoogleHits for e.g. "one-off character", and my online dictionary says its chiefly British. Does "one-time appearance" work better? – sgeureka ^t•c 12:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "expository scenes" - maybe you could explain more what that means.
  • Linked to expository writing, and added "to lay out an episode's premise to the audience" once. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "off-world" - likewise, is this a common TV term?
  • I've repeatedly heard it in Stargate ("off-world activation" of the Stargate) and Blade Runner ("A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies"). Probably a common scifi term. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "without further ado" - a little stereotyped, time-worn wording but O.K.
• "put more emphasis on Zelenka's interaction with her than just with McKay" - maybe "than only with McKay" or something similar?
• "for time constraints" - due to time constraints.
• "Nykl nailed the scene in one take" - is this language too informal?
• "Often being the messenger of critical situations" - often bringing news of critical situations? or some other rewording.

These are minor complaints. The article is well written and well referenced. There are places you could add more context for people, like me, who have never seen an episode of this series. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the prose issues tomorrow as I just realized it's already 2 a.m. here. Thank you for your review so far. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address the remaining issues and left some additional notes above. It's always a little difficult to write self-contained articles on scifi and fantasy fiction characters (i.e. establishing sufficient context) without retelling the whole plot and structure of their vast fictional universe. I'll try to come up with some more non-excessive context until tomorrow. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have cleared up most of the problems nicely. What does "off-world" mean? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not on-(this)-world", i.e. on another planet. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Layout, links to wiki sister projects are to be under the appendices. (The reasoning is that a link to wikiquote is an off site link.) —Mattisse (Talk) 18:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that, good advice. The context for the character should also have been improved now (the plot isn't really important for Zelenka; his function is to be a non-arrogant smart sidekick for an arrogant smart main character^{[original research?]}). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good work! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a(prose): b(MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a(references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. And just as I say this, GateWorld proves excellent timing (not!) and publishes a new interview with the actor... :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 23:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]