# Talk:Past Prologue

Rockfang (talk · contribs) keeps removing the {{notability}} tagging from this article despite its failing of both the general notability requirements and the specific dictates of the television episode notability guideline.  Both removals have been without comment, and on the second instance the user added unreferenced in-universe information while simultaneously removing the {{notability}} tag.  I have now again re-added the tag as appropriate without reliably sourced real-world evidence of notability.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to put it up for deletion if you'd like, but I doubt it will get deleted.  I'm going to continue to remove the notability tag.  The info I added shows why this was an important episode.  Rockfang 04:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
(EC) I'd rather afford people the opportunity to improve/contribute to the article in an effort to bring the episode up to muster.  After some time w/o sufficient improvement, I'll redirect this page to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes#Season 1 (1993).  The info you added may be pertinent in-universe information, but as I said above: the article needs real-world evidence of notability, not more plot.  Read up on the Wikipedia pages about notability, reliable sourcing, television episodes, and writing about fiction.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I added some references to top section.  If you have any suggestions for further additions, please let me know.  Rockfang 04:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sourcing alone though isn't the primary concern here, and while that is certainly necessary, the overarching concern is a lack of real-world notability.  From Wikipedia:Television episodes: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  [...]  Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance."This article doesn't have any of that, it's effectively an extended in-universe plot summary, something that can be easily summarized in another more apropos article (probable: List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes#Season 1 (1993), as I aforementioned).  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement made in the article that the Yangtzee Kiang appears in this episode for the first time is not correct. It appeared previously in the second half of "Emissary" when used by Major Kira, Dax, Dr. Bashir and Odo, as they attempt to follow Sisko into the wormhole. I will correct this. In general, it might be a good idea to remove this information from this article altogether and to move it to the article about the runabouts. Ruebezahl (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Past Prologue/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 16:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Second on my "to review" list. Johanna(talk to me!) 16:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"prolific Star Trek director" why is this necessary info in the lead?
"go on to" unnecessary
Should be "by critics" not by "the critics"
Comma after Garak in that sentence
Remove "subsequently"
"Among his previous work, he had" simpler to say "he had previously"
You link Peter Allan Fields twice in Production.
Who "also praised the writing"? Kolbe or Robinson?
Stating that something is "all about subtext" feels a little strange to me, and unless it's a direct quote, I would find some other way to phrase it.
Are there any other reviews of the episode from some of your usual Star Trek sites? (i.e. Jammer's Reviews)
All your refs are good.
@Miyagawa: Wonderful work on this article! Just a few points and then I can pass. Johanna(talk to me!) 00:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Johanna: Thanks for the review. I've covered all the changes. Regarding the reviews - while the production information on DS9 is a lot better than most of TNG, I actually have a specific book just of reviews for TNG, so that'll add a reliable review. For DS9, I'm kinda stuck with what is avaliable on the web, and unlike Voyager or Enterprise there isn't much point trying to get anything out of archive.org as it'll predate their listings. I did try newspapers.com but that just had TV listings for this episode, but sometimes you never know with that as I did find some reviews of "Space Seed" when putting that through FA. Miyagawa (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@Miyagawa: Great! Pass. Johanna(talk to me!) 03:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: