Talk:Star Trek: The God Thing

Star Trek: The God Thing 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 reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 27, 2015	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 10, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 29, 2015.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Gene Roddenberry blamed religious executives of Paramount Studios for its rejection of Star Trek: The God Thing?

Current status: Good article

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Star Trek Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Star Trek: The God Thing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seattle (talk · contribs) 13:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can review this soon. Seattle (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

File:Star Trek The God Thing novel cover.jpg: source gives a 403 forbidden; can you check to see if it's available through the Wayback Machine, or some other archival source?

Added. Miyagawa (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Reeves-Stevens (1997), I think this should be Reeves-Stevens and Reeves-Stevens (1997), to represent two authors.

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs in the "Bibliography" section should be hyphenated; see WP:ISBN for a converter. Seattle (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you copy edit the entire article, or have it copy edited, before I go any further? Thanks. Seattle (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seattle: Thanks, I've given it a copy edit - I'm not sure what had happened as there was some sections that had been moved around, one which had lost a citation and well... some of my typical mistakes (repetition of certain words and too many "However,"'s etc). Hopefully I'm eliminated those now. Sorry for the delay - I got distracted by work on the Gene Roddenberry and associated articles. Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seattle and Miyagawa: Looks like this review has stalled. You two still working on it?--Dom497 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done what has been asked in the review so far. Miyagawa (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've gone through with a copy-edit. Here are a few remaining comments:

Roddenberry wasn't enthusiastic about the idea I thought he was dead? Aside from the first and last sentences of this paragraph, it needs a copy-edit.

I've overhauled that paragraph. I realised in hindsight that it was daft to mention the death and then talk about stuff that happened before he died. Miyagawa (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roddenberry opposed the story in the film I'm not sure what this means

I've copyedited that line. Miyagawa (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roddenberry's rejection of Star Trek V Did he reject The God Thing or the movie?

I've changed the mention of "Star Trek V" to "The Final Frontier" so that its clear. Miyagawa (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In his book, Jewish Themes in Star Trek, Rabbi Yonassan Gershom states that the two are different in their approach, saying that Roddenberry wanted to disprove God's existence whereas the William Shatner directed The Final Frontier sought to take God seriously with the novelization of the film showing that the original intention in the film was to show all manner of religious expression on the final showdown with the God-like figure in Sha-Ka-Ree I don't know what you're trying to say here, but it needs a copy-edit

I've modified that line. Miyagawa (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of "Novelization" and the entire "Reception and legacy" section need a copy-edit, from a third-party source. Otherwise, if the prose doesn't shape up, I'm failing this GAN. Seattle (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa: What progress have you made progress on these comments? Seattle (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I missed the original comments. I think I've answered them and in addition I've given the reception section an overhaul and general edit. Miyagawa (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable passing this as its currently written. Get this article copy-edited from a third-party source, and renominate. Formally, I'm failing this due to section 1(a) of the good article criteria, which states that prose must be "clear and concise". Seattle (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]