Talk:Haven (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Haven (Star Trek: The Next Generation) 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.

Haven (Star Trek: The Next Generation) is part of the Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 1) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 1, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
August 10, 2016	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

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

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal 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 Episode coverage task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Star Trek Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Wil Wheaton[edit]

Does anybody know which other episode Wil Wheaton hates most in season one? Anyone also know the audioblog entry on the internet, so that we can cite it? enderminh 17:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't even in this episode, so does anyone really care that he hated it? Squidd (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Haven (Star Trek: The Next Generation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 06:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know how this works, so i'll just get straight into it now, thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 06:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" the filmed version" Is this referring to the regular version, if so, why call it the "filmed" version?

Urgh - that should have been final version. I've amended it. Miyagawa (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section ends a bit abruptly, could you add something to make it clear this is the end of the epiosode?

Added some further detail earlier on in the plot and stated that the Tarellian vessel departed the system. Miyagawa (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First two sentences of production section don't link very well, and are a bit confusing. I think the second sentence seems a bit out of place, could you rewrite this section?

Rejigged the first paragraph - changed the sentence order a little and reworded a couple of parts. I think it flows better now. Miyagawa (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed the article, thanks Miyagawa ★★Retro Lord ★★ 05:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	"during the week of November 30, 1987" Is a specific date possible? If not I understand. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 07:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Because the episodes were aired directly into syndication to local channels across the states, they didn't put a requirement on which night TNG was aired. So it aired on different days of the week in different locations. I've been stating a specific day previously in these articles but that wasn't entirely accurate - I need to go back over the previous TNG episodes and rectify that. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I was just about to add some reviews to "Too Short a Season" when I realised that it was in about 170 locations across the United States. I think we can say for certain that someone, somewhere, aired the episodes on the first day, and so I've edited the "week" part out of the lead and the reception section. Miyagawa (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	PASS! That was an quick review - Thanks!

Revisionis History[edit]

It's applicable to all TNG episodes reviews - Why on earth (and other planets) should I or anyone else care what mere human Zack Handlen of some site called "The A.V. Club" thinks??? Or the opinion of any of the other reviewers who watched the episodes more than 20 years after the original airdate? How can you write such an inaccurate line that "Critical response to the episode was mixed, with the performance of Barrett both praised and criticised" when you don't reference any of the responses to the episodes when they came out? The opinions of some ordinary people from some small blogs are of no importance. To claim that Barrett was criticized you should bring examples from the time the episodes aired - magazine articles (TV Guide, EW, Sci fi magazines etc) or literature. People who lived and watched the show at the time remember that MBR was given very positive reviews, and when writing about her performance you should refer to the original reviews and not some critique from a handful of insignificant blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.192.55 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because I don't own any of the magazines that were around at the time, and the online sources from those don't have reviews of most episodes. So we're stuck with AV Club, Tor.com etc. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haven (Star Trek: The Next Generation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130412012013/http://www.tower.com/star-trek-next-generation-episode-5-patrick-stewart-vhs/wapi/109139364 to http://www.tower.com/star-trek-next-generation-episode-5-patrick-stewart-vhs/wapi/109139364

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]