Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

< 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 Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [1].

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country edit

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)

Did you know? That Sigourney Weaver was the inspiration behind the shapeshifting convict Martia, but the role went to supermodel Iman? That actress Kim Cattrall posed for nude photos draped on the USS Enterprise bridge set; the resulting shots were deemed dangerous to the franchise and Leonard Nimoy personally ripped them all up? That the alien Klingons claim Shakespeare to be one of them? You would if you read this article. Images were run through by Awadewit (see article talk page) as were refs by Ealdgyth, I don't believe they've changed much. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I watched this film so many times when it first came out on VHS . . .

  • Is it necessary to note in the first paragraph that the film came out during the franchise's 25th anniversary? The second paragraph provides better context.
  • Don't need to note Eidelmann's age in the lead.
  • The plot summary needs a copy edit.
  • "Casting director Mary Jo Slater loaded the film with as many Hollywood stars as they could afford, including a cameo appearance by Christian Slater in a likely attempt to lure younger audiences" That sounds like speculation.
  • Any reason as to why the filmmakers gave Sulu his own command?
  • Maybe it's just me, but I find it hilarious that the Valeris link takes people to a list entry that's even shorter than the space devoted to her in this page. You really don't need the link, or similar links for minor characters without their own article.
  • Add a citation to the information contained in the Christopher Plummer photo.
  • The mention of Rene Abjenjrhnds;gjkbskopous being cast as Odo later on is essentially trivia.
  • The production section is massive. The subsections within are massive. I'd advise removing the "Production" heading and make all the third level headings second level headings. While you're at it, make a a subsection devoted exclusively to makeup, since the "Design" section spends four weighty paragraphs on it.
  • "Less evenly received than other elements were the Cold War allegory and the whodunit aspects of the film" This seems like too much of an assertion to make. Rephrase.

That's the basics of what should be addressed. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone through and delinked, removed, and cited as above, did as best a copyedit as I could on the film (it probably needs someone unfamiliar with the text to check it though.) Two things, however; I've reworded the bit about critical reception, but I'm not sure if that addressed your point or not. Also, breaking up production into further sections would result in excessive whitespace due to image placement, and I don't really see how removing a heading helps any. I figure it makes sense to keep production elements identifiably organized (similar methods are used in video game articles, for example subsections in Halo 3#Development).
Just remove some images. We really don't need that image of Walter Koening, for example. WesleyDodds (talk)
It's in the beginning of the development section, removing it will only leave a block of text you dislike. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down on some images and cut the huge blocks of text into more manageable subsections, as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial comment: Check yer dabs! I'll give the article itself a read closer to the weekend. Steve T • C 09:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let us get started then.
  • File:Star Trek VI-poster.png: a rationale for this image as an idenitification shot too?
  • File:St6-excelsior and shock wave.png: I am not certain we need to illustrate Excelsior, but the Praxis effect has a strong case. The question is would this or this be better pictures to illustrate this technique?
  • File:Hiro narita.jpg: if the author wishes to release under another license other than what Flickr specifies, then it should be through the OTRS. Stifle has pointed out that submitted OTRS:2380210 is yet again different from the information given. You might want to investigate the situation further.
  • File:St6-galley pot vaporization.png: the rationales are not convincing; illustration of main character and phasers would not hurt the article if removed. The explanatory labels are too small to be read. The subtly worn areas might just be lighting and texture, not paint, hence questionable. The cramped set design could qualify, but would this or [2] serve that rationale better?
  • File:David-warner-2008.jpg: though CC-2.0, the caption could be misleading; he is not in his make-up.
  • File:St6-klingon dinner party.png: again, illustration of characters is not a strong point. Showing the reuse of a set is not strong either, since readers might not be familiar with TNG in the first place to make the association. Costumes and cuisine choice could qualify, but would this, this, this, or this be better choices? Costume might be more clearly illustrated with this.
  • File:St6-klingon blood.png: the rationale could be better focused on the CG-ed blood, describing the image is to illustrate the shape and dynamics. Personally, I think this is a better image to do that.
Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the extraneous tags to the hiro narita image, as the OTRS wasn't really essential with the Flickr link anyhow since he changed the license; I've also added to the FUR of the poster and reworded the caption so it's clear that just David Warner. In regards to rationales; I'm trying to cram in as many elements as is possible. Segregating fair use images into sections that only illustrate single elements is a bad idea. Yes, there are pictures that better show blood and better show blue food and better show characters and better show the wear and tear built into the design and better show the gallery and better show the set and better show the uniforms, but I am constrained by minimal use and have thus chosen images which combine as many of these elements as possible; featuring the Excelsior, filmed specially for this film with a different lighting scheme, as well as the Praxis wave. Main characters commented upon in the text, as well as props, a point of contention amongst fans (the galley), the wear on the vessel and explanatory labels (I don't think you really need to read a label to understand what it is, especially when the captions tell readers exactly what they are looking at.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair-use pictures are to clearly illustrate and help the commentary/criticism. The current picture of Valeris and the phasers, for example, does not convey a sense of cramped spaces (although that rationale can be removed). The explanatory labels in this picture is not clear enough to illustrate that they are in such detail that Nimoy called corrections for typos. Personally, tuc0641 better illustrates cramped spaces and could qualify on the same level as the Valeris shot for explanatory label (there is one on the upper left). The quality of tuc0641 is, however, poor; the shot lacks an object of focus. Image tuc0443 is a lesser shot for cramped space (but better than Valeris), and shows a large part of the cast with uniforms and on the same level for "painted wear and tear" with the Valeris shot (bottom right corner). For the blood part, the suggested picture shows the dynamics better than the current picture (more distinctive globules and spray pattern), and even serves for the demonstration of costume that the current image's rationale purports. Neither shot aptly demonstrates the Klingon corridors though. For the dinner picture, tuc0148 shows Gorkon's costume at about the same level of detail and better illustrates the disgusting appearance of the food. Jappalang (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the FUR for the Klingon blood and replaced the image, as I agree it is a better shot. But I still have to disagree with the others. The image of just the wave, for example, gives readers no sense of scale; the ship is integral to providing that, and adds more usefulness to the image. Swapping out the galley shot for an image of the uniforms is foolish, as they are already discussed in Star Trek II in length and they are visible in the shot as well. I'm trying to place in as many elements as possible, I do not see why this is an issue; if you think the resolution can be bumped up, that is a different matter, but it's per spec with rez guidelines. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of Excelsior as a scaling device is a good one, and I agree with that. I have rewritten the rationale of that picture to reflect that (please review it), and struck it off as an issue. Images have to show its purpose clearly, regardless of whether the intent is shown only in a small portion or as the main subject. The Valeris shot's kitchen utensils are blurry, even on the original screen capture, and might be mistaken for something else. I would posit that for a combined rationale of galley, labels, and wear and tear of walls, this (tuc0387), this (tuc0389), or this (tuc0390) (not so much as the first two) are better as they show the kitchen with greater clarity while retaining the same level of details as the Valeris shot. Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original image I had in the shot was of Valeris vaporizing the pot (tuc0389.jpg) but Awadewit voiced the opinion that the labels and wear and tear were much less visible, hence the shot was replaced with the current one. Chekov is currently in an article and probably will be again, and Spock is in the dinner scene with Gorkon (and in a side profile, which has the advantage of better showing the ear design which Nimoy specifically asked for.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpick: original shot of Valeris vaporizing the pot is tuc0388, not tuc0389, and the current image has only a partial back shot of Spock (not really identifying). How about putting tuc390 (Spock with labels and clear pots) in, and replacing the dinner shot (no food, partial back of Spock, partial Gorkon's and Azerbur's fronts) with tuc0137 (clear food, other Klingons, Gorkon's back, and Azetbur's front) or tuc0148 (clear food, other Klingons, full smaller Gorkon's front, no Azerbur)? For the last image, Gorkon's costume would likely not be visible in default thumbnail, but is visible in the 450px wide resolution for the File page. Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we still lose Valeris, who isn't going to be found in any other article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain that is a reason, it is not possible to have a picture of every character in every film in this project while abiding the policies. I do not see the non-depiction of Valeris as a loss. Anyway, the last two images, in my opinion are not opposable issues (the opinions involved are mainly subjective); I just think they could be better. They are left unstruck for discussion. Jappalang (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dinner and Valeris images were removed per below, thus stricken. Jappalang (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I never get to do full reviews of these articles... they always get promoted before I get to them! (Shows how useful I am.) Anyway, I am hesitant about the usage of File:St6-excelsior and shock wave.png. It is not immediately clear what the fair use rationale is (one has to go to the image description image to find out). So its presence in the "Plot" section appears to be decorative, since that section cannot support any image. We have at WP:FILMNFI: "Since a film article's "Plot" section contains descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source (the film) and not information found in reliable sources regarding the film, the section is not considered critical commentary or discussion of film. Thus, non-free images need to belong in other sections in which they can be supported by critical commentary." Either it could be moved, or an explanatory sentence could be inserted a la Dirty Dancing, but the latter approach feels very awkward to me. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't around when the film guideline was crafted, so I can't speak for it. Common sense: images are always decorative in some fashion. In terms of images, moving the Excelsior later results in an article that is frankly not that interesting to look at above the fold, with squashed together images later on that is similarly unappealing; while that's not exactly the best defense, the image is still covered by NFCC in that it provides immediate visual information that is referenced several times throughout the article, starting from simple plot illustration to aiding critical commentary. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the visual appeal, but not the above-the-fold argument. Even with the TOC hidden, I only see a sliver of the image at my 1280x800 resolution, and it seems like a bigger resolution is necessary to even view the image. Why can the "Plot" section not exist without any images? Can the sections not be re-shuffled to put those with visual appeal at the top? There is no clear guideline for placement, but I don't think it's within NFCC to say that the screenshot can illustrate the plot on a simple level. It seems a bit of a reach for readers to understand the significance of an image when the commentary for it is either in the image description page or at another part of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Praxis effect shot can exist, even in the Plot section; the image, however, must clearly illustrate the effect, explain why this shot illustrates the effect and why removing it would hamper the readers' understanding of the effect. Furthermore, the caption should be appropriate, relating to both plot (for context) and effect (a successful technique that would be used for other films). Jappalang (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Either use pp or don't use it. Need consistency there. Also, pp. is usually only used for more than one p.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Films are a bit out of my comfort zone, but the article looks be of high quality.

  • My main concern is that the length is a lot to take in. I'm not complaining about the details, but I found myself having to refer back to the "Plot" section frequently for reminders of what element (especially with a large number of unconventional names) was being discussed to fully understand the later "Production" subsections. Not sure how to fix this though. Maybe include a few reminders or hints here and there about the element. "Penal colony Rura Penthe" is a good example of one that helped me remember, but something like "The battle above Khitomer" had me scratching my head until I checked the plot again.
  • I agree with the comments above for File:St6-galley pot vaporization.png and File:St6-klingon dinner party.png. Those two images add the least to the article. I know images that consolidate elements are preferred, but these end up showing very little of their intended elements. I don't think much is lost by their removal. For instance, I didn't really need an image to visualize dyed squid and pasta or wear and tear on sets.
  • There are several lengthy quotes in the "Reception" section that should be paraphrased/summarized.

Those are the main things that popped out to me. Overall, the article is in excellent shape. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've removed the images, and gone through to shorten/paraphrase some of the passages. Do they look better now? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes you tweaked are better, but it's still too much in my opinion. I think more summarizing would be better.
In regard to Laser's opposition below, I don't think the "Themes" section is a disappoint. But after looking at that section again, I do think the last paragraph of it should be further expanded if there are the sources to do it. It seemed to me that the Shakespeare portion overshadowed the themes of change, which looked to be the themes the production staff were really going for. (Guyinblack25 talk)
I like the extra bits you added to that last paragraph. My only remaining issue is the lengthy quotes in the "Critical response" section. I don't think much is gained from reading the critics' exact words, and believe the same information could be condensed if paraphrased. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
But I don't really see why it needs to be paraphrased. As far as I can see, the quotes aren't obstructing flow but adding description to declarations; I'd rather let critics speak for themselves (they are more interesting than me reciting their list of grievances). If you can point out a policy page that prohibits such use, feel free to correct me :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's more my personal preference. I don't believe it's in any policy or guideline. I've always felt that if readers wanted to know exactly what critics said, they could read the review. But that's just me.
Weak support: As I said before, films are not my forte, but the article looks of high quality. The length can make it bit inaccessible for some readers, but everything else looks good. It's well written, properly sourced, and comprehensive. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose, 1b. I do so with no pleasure, because the article is well-written. However, the Themes section is a disappointment. Most of the section outlines how Shakespeare was worked into the film's dialog, but much more work is needed on the film's major themes and what they mean. This section should contain information drawn from major sources of film criticism that exist for the Star Trek films. For example, one of the most important books is Enterprise Zones: Critical Positions On Star Trek by Harrison, et al. This and other books will include important criticism that you can use to flesh out the article. For some examples of other film articles where this is done well, see Mulholland Drive (film) and Barton Fink. --Laser brain (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In re to both Guy and you: I assure you I've looked for sources on the thematic front. I'm currently seeing if there's a little more to make a decent paragraph about the parallels between the obsolescence of the cast and what shows up on the final print, but with all bluntness, Star Trek VI isn't Mulholland Drive; Nicholas Meyer didn't have big artsy pretenses when he set out to make the movie. :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But.. have you looked at the Enterprise Zones book? It is an entire book devoted to serious review and criticism of the Star Trek films. From the Amazon synopsis: "... Enterprise Zones dissects the episodes and films. The contributors challenge Star Trek's avowed utopian vision and liberal humanism, demonstrating the concerns of recent cultural studies in academe. Essays explore such topics as Captain Kirk's masculinity, Lt. Commander Data's cyborg nature, and Counselor Troi's costumes. Emphasis is given to the politics of the original series and The Next Generation, and both are discussed in terms of militarism and neocolonialism. The contributors write with suspicion, insight, and respect for their subject matter, making this a sterling addition for any academic library." I don't see how we can, in good conscience, leave out such a promising source when that section is so slight. --Laser brain (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey now, I wasn't saying I wouldn't go out and get it (it's at my library), I'm just saying that don't hold your breath for serious philosophical points here; from what I can tell the only entirely Star Trek VI-related piece is on Chang as homoerotic something or rather. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that is just comedy gold. I smell a Cracked pitch. --Laser brain (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, I tried submissions like that and Cracked said they don't take pitches relating to only one film/series (and my Jurassic Park one was killer too :( ). Anyway I'm off to the library to see what I can find of actual merit :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking at the book now, and unfortunately I don't think there's anything good for this article in it. STVI is only referenced in "Enjoyment (in) Between Fathers; General Chang as Homoerotic Enablement in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country". Besides the fact I have found no indication that the author's views have been given much credence elsewhere, I present the following passage: "...That is, how does Chief of Staff General Chang's presence, in all its complex figuration, adumbrate a homoerotic economy? How does heterosexuality emerge and function as a nodal point that does not simply exclude homosexuality but excludes its own nodality? Such a reification of what has hitherto been contingent is heterosexuality's instituting repudiation, the constitutive repression that is indistinguishable from the return of the repressed." And it goes on like that for pages. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! Well, there goes that idea. I'm sorry you had to waste your time going to look at the book. However, maybe you can ascertain if it would be useful for any other Star Trek film articles, assuming you plan to do more of them. --Laser brain (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so much the movies, from what I saw, but a lot for The Next Generation and their characters (Worf, Troi, Data)... the rest of the essays seem less BS and jargon filled. :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose; the prose could do with a tweak in a few places, but it's nothing major and I'll go into that later. Content-wise for now I've only a couple of issues/queries:
    • The "Reception" section is a little all-encompassing. Do you think there is scope here for splitting it into two sections: theatrical release/performance and critics' remarks? And is there any more information on releases and performance in English-speaking countries other than the United States? It should also be noted that Box Office Mojo rolls the performance figures of the United States and Canada into one, so consider altering references here to "North America". There are also a couple of instances where quotes are attributed to a publication, rather than the writer of the review. If the reviewer is named, this should be used.
    • Some of the other sections are likewise a little long. A good thing for comprehensiveness, but consider splitting those under "Production" into further subsections for ease of navigation and reading. Information in the "Development" section could, for example, be split off into one on "Writing", with similar splits in "Makeup", "Design", "Filming" and "Effects" if possible (or desirable). Let me know if you want any suggestions on this score.
    • What was the film's budget? Constant mentions are made of "budget cuts" and attempts to stretch the "limited budget", but we're never actually told what it was.
  • But overall, another nice job. The issue that Laser brain brings up with regard to Enterprise Zones might be a stumbling block down the line, but I'll await your reply to that issue before remarking on it further. All the best, Steve T • C 11:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone ahead and split reception, changed US to North America, and added in reviewer's names (there's only one I left the way it was, because we don't actually have the guy's first name and I thought it would be strange.) For subsections, what do you think they could be split in to? I've already separated makeup from design, but I'm at a loss to other clear splits. Finally, in regards to budget: I've found a reported $27,000 1991 figure at The Numbers,[3] but I am not sure as to the reliability of the site. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, The Numbers can likely be proved reliable. However, if you want to stick to the mainstream sources, try this from The New York Times:

          ...The asking prices of all the stars, including William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, and costs for the special effects and elaborate sets envisioned by the producers would have added up to $41 million. That is not an outrageous sum to make a movie generally, but it is for a "Star Trek" movie. The series has had little appeal abroad and would be unlikely to sell $100 million in tickets at the box office in the United States, the minimum needed for a $41 million film to break even... [snip information already in Wiki article] ... The film's production budget was reduced to $27 million, and filming begins this month.

          HTH. I'll take a look at those subsections now. Steve T • C 19:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think there is a strong case for splitting the "Design" section into "Production design", "Models and props", and "Make-up". "Make-up" itself could also be split into "Klingons" and "Other aliens". A rough test of this can be seen in this revision. Further tweaks, to both the layout and the section headings, would probably be required, but I think doing something along these lines would be a good aid to navigation. Steve T • C 19:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not one for a large table of contents, myself. I regrouped elements in design and spun off a "props" section, but I'm wary about adding even more section headers. As for the budget, I integrated it into the article (NYT; thanks for the find.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Is it just an aesthetic consideration, your not wanting a large TOC, or do you think as currently structured the sections present the information in the best possible way? (Struck resolved, btw). Steve T • C 22:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • A mixture of both; I just think it's better to have fuller sections then segregate all the content; it has the side effect of hampering article flow, I feel. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Fair enough; I still disagree, but that's a valid editorial reason, so I'll strike that oppose. The last thing I'll say on this is that you can subsection "Design" without losing the layout or interrupting the flow, with "Makeup" and "Props" as subsections in "Design", and the text currently in the "Design" section contained within a "Production design" subsection. Anyway, some brief comments on the prose to come later today. Steve T • C 09:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Because the prose is already pretty good, with only a few tweaks required IMO, I hope you don't mind my making the alterations outright; it would take longer to type out and post the list here TBH. Feel free to revert any you see that you happen to disagree with. Steve T • C 11:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Why the hell would I? They look good so far :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Struck oppose; will also post at bottom below for ease of navigation for delegate. Steve T • C 15:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with critical comments. A comprehensive, engaging and generally well-written article. I have some comments:

  • Is the article written is US or UK English? There are "usefullness", "modelled", "traveller", "oderous" (sic) and "colourful".
  • Here Meyer picked Cliff Eidelman to produce the film's score; the resulting music was darker and purposefully different than any previous Star Trek offering - "the resulting music" sounds a little silly, how about "Meyer picked Cliff Eidelman to produce the film's score which is darker and purposefully different to any previous Star Trek offering."
  • Here, The Undiscovered Country was completed in just 11 months, for release in December 1991 - how about "and was released"?
  • And here, On release, The Undiscovered Country garnered positive reviews, - the "on release" is redundant as is the "(in order) to" later on.
  • Here A special collectors' edition DVD version of the film was released in 2004, with Meyer making minor alterations to his cut of the movie. - how about "for which Meyer made"? Also, none of the "special collectors" at the bottom of the article have the possessive.

*There is a problem with "protege". I prefer the acute accents as in "protégé" but I am prepared to let this go if something is done about "protegé" later on. Thank you for an interesting hour. Graham Colm Talk 20:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review :) I have made your changes above, the only BritEng word I didn't change was "traveller", as it's direct quotation from shakespeare. The rest were just me being confused about where I live. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full support and best wishes. Graham. :-)) Graham Colm Talk 21:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on resolved issues. Still not wild about the section structure, but it's not a major issue. Nice work. Steve T • C 15:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just got through the "Development" subsection; great article so far! Hope you do not mind, but I clarified some wiki-links. Also, for film titles, there seemed to be inconsistency in identifying the Roman numeral or not. How do you want to treat it? Also, another issue is the "See Cast" bit in the infobox; it seems self-referential, basically saying "Visit the 'Cast' section if you want more information." Is there no way to provide a short list of the top-liners in this field? Will continue reading and copy-editing; let me know if any of my edits are out of order. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed your edit to clarify the film titles; I don't have too strong a feeling one way or the other about this, but thought I'd explain the reasons behind my formatting them like they were in my recent minor copy edit. The article previously used a mix of the main title (e.g. Star Trek V) and the subtitle (The Final Frontier). My thinking was to use the full title (Star Trek V: The Final Frontier) for the first instance in the article only, with only the subtitle used thereafter. This offered to my mind the best mix of giving the reader enough information to know which film was being referenced, without sentences becoming clunky and overburdened by using the full titles. Steve T • C 16:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what you intended. I thought it was strange to see "The Wrath of Khan and co-wrote Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" and "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and The Voyage Home" -- struck me as inconsistent. Should I restore the previous formatting, or is there another solution we can use? Also, a question for the primary contributor... is the usage of "pryo" in the "Effects" subsection how it was printed in the reference? Maybe use [sic] instead? It just seems strange to see this misspelling since "pyro" is the typical shorthand. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this comprehensive article; reflects the qualities of Wikipedia in being the best (and most accessible) source of information about this film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as minor contributor. It just amazes me how in-depth this article became so I felt so unworthy of reviewing it, but considering others' issues have been resolved I now endorse it. Alientraveller (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I performed a light copyedit prior to FAC (for all the good that actually did, I'm a rubbish copyeditor), but I'm happy to lend my support now its been vetted by more experienced users. There's no problems I can make out, the article is comprehensive, informative and reads well. -- Sabre (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2009 (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_VI:_The_Undiscovered_Country&oldid=1088821838"