Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek III: The Search for Spock/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:21, 28 February 2010 [1].

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock edit

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Arson. Explosions. William Shatner going through a dozen shirts. All this you'll find in the article on Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the middle chapter of a loose trilogy of Trek films. The article has undergone a peer review and separate copyedit by the obliging Brianboulton, and I've taken my own stab at cutting down redundancies and making it a little more accessible.

References: At the PR, two references, trekmovie.com and slashfood, were brought up as possible issues in regards to RS. The Trekmovie site is mostly blog-style. The post's author, John Tenuto, is a sociology professor at College of Lake County and is quoted in other publications[2][3][4] John Devore of Slashfood has had some of his work appear in The New York Sun and CNN (other mentions may not be the same person, so those are the only ones I'm sure of). In short I believe both are reliable, although the Slashfood one can be readily removed (it's referenced to the same point as the Tenuto ref) if people here disagree. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything seems fine. I lean slightly reliable on both the sources mentioned above, but other editors should give their own opinion here for consensus. RB88 (T) 02:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. No dab links and no dead external links. Alt text is present, except for the video, which also needs it. But there are also some points in the existing alt text that need work. Alt text needs to be verifiable for a non-expert who looks at the image only, and I, for one, wouldn't be able to verify from the first image that this guy is called Spock, or any of the other names mentioned. There are a few similar problems in the other images. Ucucha 19:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: Five still images:

  • Usage: Good, standard.
  • Rationale: Good.
  • License: CC-BY-2.0. Verified.
  • Quality: Acceptable.
  • Usage: Good. Significantly explicates sourced critical commentary on primary image content, which is of central importance to film.
  • Rationale: Good.
  • Caption: Needs cite. Caption contains information not included in running text ("while the red feather design on the ship's underside was a remnant of its planned Romulan origins"). This needs to be sourced.
  • Usage: Good. Significantly explicates sourced critical commentary on primary image content, which is of central importance to film.
  • Rationale: Good.
  • License: PD-Art. Unquestionable.
  • Quality: Dürer.

One moving image:

  • Usage: Good. Significantly explicates sourced critical commentary on primary image content, which is of central importance to film and could not be effectively conveyed via still image(s).
  • Rationale: Good.—DCGeist (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references. I realize now that it's not explicitly laid out that the design was a Romulan thread that made it into the final design, which is hopefully clearer now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Klingon Bird-of-Prey image seems very dark. SunCreator (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—My concerns have been addressed. The article is of good quality and appears to satisfy the FA criteria.—RJH (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment—It looks pretty good to me, and essentially of FA quality. I just have a few small issues to raise before supporting it:
    • The plot summary only has a single reference. Was that intended to cover the entire summary?
    • "...to their surprise, discover a life form on the surface." Since the technology included a built-in "life matrix" and had already demonstrated an ability to create life (in cavern in the second film), how is this a surprise? I think instead the signature was of a life form they could not identify.
    • The last two sentences of the "Cast" section are lacking citations.
    Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the review! In response: the plot summary is mostly (by default) cited directly to the film; unfortunately there aren't that many good reliable sources that cover the plot summary and unfortunately ones like that on the official Star Trek site are geared more to those familiar to the series, making its use in citing a concise and relatively accessible summary rather poor.
        • Is it a wikipedia convention then that the film itself can serve as a source for the plot summary? (I haven't seen this written up, and it's hard to track all the ongoing changes.) Otherwise I am unclear how this satisfies the need for reliable sources.—RJH (talk)
      • The final sentences of the cast section are unsourced as they are straightforward information for the credits, with no elaboration or additional information that would in my opinion be likely to be challenged.
        • Okay I'll concede two of the unsourced sentences. However, for the statement that "Scott McGinnis" plays a young man whom Uhura forces into the closet at gunpoint, the only reference I can find is McGinnis played a character called "Mr. Adventure".—RJH (talk)
      • On the Genesis point... I believe that there wasn't supposed to be any complicated life, in the form of animals, etc. In Star Trek II Carol Marcus says that the device creates a habitat for life to be added as seen fit, so I think this points to the idea that they weren't expecting anything to be there. Regardless, you're right that it might be a little confusing, and so I've tweaked it :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a citation for the Mr. Adventure cast bit. As to plot: basically it's accepted that most of the time when in an article discussing a work's plot, the work itself is the source (this doesn't count if you're discussing the work in another article, however, as this is not presumed.) As the WP:FILMS style guide states: "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable" (of course, making sure not to introduce original claims.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for your responses; I'll have to take your word for the plot citation issue. I've change my preference to Support.—RJH (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT Auntieruth Conditional Support. (reviewed from Prose crit. only) Nice job at presenting a complex subject (and one over which a lot of people might want to extend "ownership"). I have a couple of minor points to clear up in the prose:

  • Spock's former Vulcan trainee..... She isn't formerly a Vulcan, she's formerly a trainee. The ill-fated captain of the Grissom (or SS Grissom?) Could it be captain of the ill-fated Grissom? Or the doomed Grissom?
  • So I can't even look to see if the actor I am playing the scene with is looking anything like I think he should look...I realize this is a Nimoy quote, but could you check your source and make sure you've not missed a word or a punctuation mark? If you haven't, could you add editorially the proper words/punctuation to make this intelligible? (So I can't even look to see if the actor [with whom] I am playing the scene ... [looks] anything like I [as a director] think he should look...something like that. I read it three times before I could figure it out.
  • Do you have more on the destruction of the Genesis planet? I'd really like to know how they did that!
  • the bit about Takei and the "tiny" comment....this needs more context. He's referred to as "Tiny" under what circumstance?
  • Hansen continues that the issues of personal liberty (in themes section). Shouldn't it be "contends"....?
  • Oh, and there's a dab on Brainstorm.

I'm looking forward to reading it again, but I hope you'll go through and tweak a few sections just a weeeee bit more. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the review! I've taken a stab at all the above, save the comments about Genesis (I'll have to dig through what I've got and see if I missed anything, I'm sure there's a good paragraph there :P) I chopped down Nimoy's quote as it could be explained a lot better with paraphrasing the first part. Ownership on a Star Trek article? Maybe if there was anyone else interested in the topic I'd feel protective :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks better...all those little tweaks. You took out Mr. Adventure, although I thought that was fine, I guess another reviewer objected. That is certainly a great line. A few more comments: - perhaps William Shatner reprises his long-term role as James T. Kirk....? - a bit awkward, this sentence: "A bar scene where McCoy attempts to charter a spaceflight to Genesis before he is detained opens with two officers playing a World War I-era dogfight video game." - I hope you'll find something more on the destruction of Genesis. in the plot summary, first you say that the planet is off limits and the next sentence, Saavik and David are there, and later, there is reference to McCoy being in detention, but no explanation. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
very nice. I made a couple word changes, and added one word. Hope that is okay. (changed the ground caves to the ground collapses, and added again to the bit about Deforest Kelley) Thanks for such an interesting and well done article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support: There do not appear to be any references to the film as a continuation of a hit TV show with the same cast and characters, or background of the premise of the Star Trek franchise are included in the introductory sections. I don't know if this was included in other Star Trek articles you've written. I think some of these elements are worth placing in the article. One sentence at the beginning of Plot: The film continues the premise of the 1960s Star Trek television show that followed the crew of a ship sent from Earth to explore the outer boundaries of space. As Star Trek fans are an opinionated group of folks, what is there written about how fans have received this film in comparison to other films, TNG, Voyager, and installments of the general franchise. I understand one of the movies is absolutely hated by fans. Can you include a couple sentences or a paragraph about how this film was received? Very thorough otherwise, and well-written. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to the punch on this; I was going to mention it as part of a longer review (tonight), but as it's been brought up, I might as well mention it now. The article currently says, "The film's production acknowledged certain expectations from fans," so it seems odd not to mention whether those expectations were met. It would be good to state their 1984 reaction, and maybe even where it stands in fan affections these days (if the sources stretch that far). Steve T • C 16:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (resolved) from Steve T • C. Leaning support, but there are a few niggles. Still, I don't have as much to say about the article as I implied I might earlier. I feel like I've read this half-a-dozen times over the last couple of months, and that's probably not far off. As during the peer review, I couldn't find a lot wrong with the article, so I don't have much to add to what's already been said. To repeat what's been noted above, it would be nice if you could find a good source that mentions the fan reaction. We have critical reaction, and general audience reaction (to a certain extent—through the box office), but we work with what we've got—if there isn't anything decent about the fans, fair enough. One exception I have is with the lead, which isn't as well-written as the rest of the article. Some notes:
    • "during the events of The Wrath of Khan"—then, two paragraphs later, "went on to direct ... Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home". Probably best to either pick one style and stick with it throughout, or use the full name at the first instance of each, with the shorter title thereafter.
    • "When [Kirk] learns that Spock's essence or katra is held in the mind of Leonard McCoy"—I think this might confuse those unfamiliar with the film, or Trek lore; it's not evident that essence and katra are referring to the same concept, without following the link. Inserting commas around "or katra" might do the trick; a clearer way would be to pipe katra with "essence", but you might fall afoul of WP:EGG that way. Lastly, "essence" is a little vague; the katra article uses "immortal spirit"; might that be more descriptive?
    • "Nimoy took over directing duties, the first Star Trek cast member to do so."—by not mentioning Meyer, the question of from whom he "took over" arises in the reader's mind. Better to simplify? ("Nimoy directed", "Nimoy directed the film" or similar).
    • "James Horner, The Wrath of Khan's composer, returned to expand his themes from the previous film."—with this already the third mention of Khan as the previous film, it's probably unnecessary at this point to name it again. Suggest, "Composer James Horner returned to expand his themes from the previous film" or similar.
    • "It went on to make $76 million in the US domestic box office"—the more idiomatic term would be "at the US domestic box office". Plus, that "domestic" is well redundant; the US has already been established as its "home" country.
    • "critics alternatively praised and lambasted"—you mean "alternately", right? This better not be another silly BrE/AmE thing, else there'll be significant lobbying on my part for the repeal of certain Acts. (In fact, I'm not even sure "alternately" is a good choice, either. They didn't "take turns" to criticise and praise the story and effects, they just did it, presumably much at the same time).
  • And that's pretty much it for the lead. As I say, the rest looks largely fine. I'm going to make a couple of tweaks here and there. I'll explain each through edit summaries; please feel free to revert if you disagree with any of them. Nice work once again. Steve T • C 23:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made tweaks following your suggestions to the lead. I'm looking through what I've got to see if I can find information on fan reaction, but given the difficulty in finding even a good, reliable summary of critical reaction, I'm not that hopeful :/ Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck lead comments. Others to follow. Steve T • C 11:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Steve T • C. OK, screw it, I found time to read it again. I made some tweaks (see the intermediate edit summaries for the rationales for each), but nothing major. This is another fine Trek article from David, and probably the single finest resource available about the film anywhere online. I'm happy with the rationales provided for the potentially-borderline sources, and I'm delighted he's managed to craft another fine fair-use claim to include a movie clip. I have a few remaining niggles, but nothing that should impact promotion IMO (I'm sure they'll be dealt with in short order):

Cast
  • "Responding to suggestions that Star Trek copied Star Wars, Kelley asserted that the opposite was true. 'Tribbles,' he said, 'started the first [science fiction] bar scene.'"—no context. The bar scene hasn't been mentioned yet, so for the uninformed reader the point will be meaningless. Perhaps add a line here, or in the plot section, to explain it?
Costumes and makeup
  • "Fletcher developed a mythology behind each outfit; the stone ornaments on Sarek's robe, for instance, were intended to be representative of a Vulcan's level of consciousness."—I don't know what this means, how stone ornaments can be "representative of a Vulcan's level of consciousness".
  • "The costumer had the advantage of access to Paramount's store rooms, which contained expensive fabrics by the ton."—a metaphorical ton (i.e. lots) or a literal one? (Which seems unlikely, but I dunno.)
Music
  • "The theme was expanded in a way not possible in The Wrath of Khan to represent the ancient alien mysticism and culture of Spock and Vulcan."—uncited.
Critical response
  • "The Search for Spock received generally positive reviews from critics."—conflicts with the lead, which says "mixed". Can this be cited?
  • "Janet Maslin of The New York Times and Newsweek's wrote that ..."—missing the name of the Newsweek reviewer?
General
  • The alt text uses a lot of colours, which IIRC are discouraged.
  • Are Plexiglass and Styrofoam proper nouns? If so, they should be capitalised.

Other than that ... nice work once again. All the best, Steve T • C 12:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've axed the tribble quote entirely (it's actually referring to the bar scene in "The Trouble with Tribbles", but that's kind of irrelevant in this case. I've reworded the fabrics to "literal tons of fabrics" (because it is that much, but leaving the structure as it was might suggest tons of just one kind of fabric.) Cited the leading trail, and while I think the use of styrofoam and such was used in a generic way, I've respected trademarks and capitalized :) For the Vulcan bit... I'm unsure of how to reword this. The ornaments are supposed to be a symbol for the Vulcan's operating thetan level, basically, but I'm not sure how I can make it plainer. I'll probably swap the lead bit to conform with the reception section, but I'm still looking for a ref for that... I might have to send out for The Art of Star Trek from interlibrary loan again in the hope that it might have a decent summary I can ref. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops. Just realised that I never revisited this. Consider all my comments above resolved. All the best, Steve T • C 20:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Star_Trek_III:_The_Search_for_Spock/archive1&oldid=1138472093"