Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Man Trap/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2016 [1].

The Man Trap edit

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the very first episode broadcast of Star Trek: The Original Series, making it the prime candidate for the front page spot on September 8th this year to mark the 50th anniversary. So this has been worked up through GA, and has gone through a Peer Review as well as taking on-board the previous comments received during the successful FAC of "Space Seed" (which please note would be the backup if this FAC fails). Miyagawa (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I had my say at PR and it appears to meet the FA criteria. It looks to be comprehensive and well-written. I've archived one reference. Z105space (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for archiving that btw. I've been having some trouble with using archive.org on my version of Chrome, but I've since realised it still works in another browser and so have started using it again via that instead. Miyagawa (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Checkingfax

  • Images were found to be resized to 70% because of using unnamed upright parameter: I resized images to 100% by removing the upright parameter from each image containing it.
  • Checked article for MoS compliance: Passed.
  • Refined structure.

Looking good. Please ping me back for my !vote after review is further along. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Checkingfax: Seeing as we haven't had any further points added in a few days and we're already at two supports and a leaning support, I figure I'd ping you back to see if you were happy to add a vote. Thanks, btw. Miyagawa (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions could be more succinct
  • Toolbox
    • Alt text: Pass[2]
    • Citation bot: No changes were required[3]
    • Disambig links: Pass[4]
    • Edit count: ? (there are no FA instructions on how to present the results of this tool here)
    • External links: Pass[5]
    • Peer review: Found issues here
    • Redirects: 3 issues[6]
    • Reflinks: Pass[7]
  • Date harmony: Pass

Support assuming nitpicks from the Toolbox are addressed. – Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks - just to note that I haven't been able to fix those issues yet as I can't seem to the relevant website to load. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, got them to work directly from the toolbox. There are three redirects - I've requested the deletion of one as I can't find any reference to it's relevance. The other two are using the disambiguation used elsewhere in Star Trek articles (both the current and previous versions of the disambiguation formatting). The javascript peer review makes several suggestions - however, the lead is already the suggested length per the article size as stated at WP:LEADLENGTH. There is no free use image available that would be appropriate for the infobox. There is criticism of starting a section heading with "the", but I don't think there is a better way to refer to "the creature". Perhaps it could be renamed to the "Salt vampire" but that isn't an official designation. However, it did cause me to check for some British spellings, and I'm afraid my native spellings have crept in - two words corrected to American English. Miyagawa (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro edit

Comments: Overall, this is looking good. The prose needs a little tightening, but it seems to be comprehensive overall. A few comments on the lead, with more to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It was the first episode of the first season to be broadcast": Why make this so convoluted? Perhaps just "It was the first episode of the show to be broadcast"?
  • Normally I'd say "It was the first episode of the first season"; except this is an unusual case it was only the first episode to be broadcast and really the sixth episode. It's worded like that to avoid the usual drag of IP editors coming in and making the silly edit while arguing that either "The Cage" or "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (the two pilots) were the first episode. Hence the unusual broadcast wording. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why not simply "It was the first episode of the show to be broadcast"? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the more I think about it, why not have the first sentence of the lead as ""The Man Trap" is an episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek, the first to be broadcast." That might make more sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me - that change has been made. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Set in the 23rd century, the series follows the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and his crew aboard the Starfleet starship USS Enterprise.": I don't know if this is the standard format for Star Trek, but it doesn't quite work here. We have a sentence about the episode, then this sentence about the whole show, then a sentence again about the episode. I think the best bet might be to move "It was the first episode of the first season to be broadcast, airing on NBC on September 8, 1966. "The Man Trap" was written by George Clayton Johnson and directed by Marc Daniels" to the end of the first paragraph of the lead.
  • It was a move suggested during the FAC of "Space Seed", but happy to rearrange. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson took on the writing duties after Roddenberry disliked Erwin's work on another plot proposal": Unless I'm missing it, I don't think we have the reason the Erwin was removed as writer in the main body.
  • The only parts we have on it are in the first three paragraphs of writing. Essentially Roddenberry was notorious at messing his writers around, and this was simply the first occasion that he swapped out one writer for another without all that strong a reason. Personally, I think he knew he had a well known writer who wanted to be involved and so swapped out a friend so that the more famous writer had something to do. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe so, but the first three paragraphs of writing do NOT say why Roddenberry moved him on. The only place in the article that says why Erwin was dropped is here in the lead. We need to put this in the main body if we can source it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see what's happened here. At some point Erwin was included in the lead instead of a further reference to Johnson. I've corrected it, so it should now reference the same information as the body of the article. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the "saviour" inclusion in the lead. It seems a little strong, to be honest. In any case, why are we using the British spelling of saviour?
  • Removed from the lead, and fixed the spelling in the body. The error is because I'm a native British writer and saviour/savior wasn't a word I was aware of having a different spelling in American English until your comment. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've copy-edited the lead a little, please revert anything you don't like or that I have messed up.
  • Do we need to make more of its selection as the first episode? Why was it chosen? (I took out the reference to "The Naked Time" as we don't really need that level of detail here) And should we be making clear that this was an all-new show?
  • I've expanded that part in the lead a little. Essentially there were four options, and it came down to "The Naked Time" and "The Man Trap", with the latter chosen because it was scarier. Miyagawa (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jumping ahead a little to the Broadcast section (where we have the details about its selection), was there any publicity about the new series? If so, that could be added to this article as it would affect this episode.
  • I've taken a look at some of it for work on other articles and bizarrely (at least for modern shows), it doesn't really discuss this episode at all. They avoided mentioning Spock where they could (or mistook him for a martian) as they thought the ears made him look the devil (one publicity photo featured him in costume but without the ears) and concentrated quite a bit on Grace Lee Whitney as Janice Rand. They used her so much, that she thought she was going to be one of the three main characters. The concentration was about explaining the premise which was still quite unusual for mainstream television (although we take science fiction for granted these days, Star Trek and Lost in Space really did re-write the rulebook and stopped science fiction from automatically being considered to be children's programming). Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, jumping ahead, it is a modern phenomenon that a first episode has a big audience which then declines for subsequent ones. Was this the case here? It might be interesting to see how the first episode fared compared to others. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there are two things that need to be considered here. The first is that back in 1966, there were only three channels. Star Trek, at least in the first season generally came second in the ratings from what I can see. In this particular case it came first, but that would be possible because NBC broadcast new shows a week earlier than either of their competitors. So "The Man Trap" went up against two repeats. But I can absolutely add something to discuss the following weeks' figures. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a further paragraph. While it's true that the overall ratings dropped, which can be attributed to the new broadcast going up against repeats on the other two channels, the show did go on to win further timeslots. I included the ratings from the next two episodes to show the pattern. Miyagawa (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot: A few issues here. I've copy-edited directly but there's a few things I can't clear up. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The starship USS Enterprise arrives at planet M-113 for the medical exams of Professor Robert Crater (Alfred Ryder) and his wife Nancy (Jeanne Bal)": Maybe a word on why they are on that planet in the first place?
  • I've added that it's a research station. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "travel to the surface using the transporter": I don't know if this is the standard way of writing this, but would "transport to the surface" be a little tighter?
  • In passing, I think "Enterprise" sounds less good than "the Enterprise", but I think the usage here is probably more correct and matches other articles.
  • "and Kirk teases McCoy about his affection for Nancy Crater ten years earlier": The "and" is a bit awkward here, and does not really place this chronologically. Before the transport, during it or after it? Or just make it a sentence by itself, perhaps?
  • I've edited this. The teasing took place in the transporter room just prior to the transporter being activated. Miyagawa (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nancy arrives" and "Kirk sends the dazed Darnell outside" and "Crater arrives": Arrives where? Outside where? Where are we? And where is Crater at this point? I think we need to say where the action is taking place at the beginning of the episode.
  • I've edited those lines to try to make it clearer. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCoy and Spock determine that Darnell died from having all salt drained from his body. Kirk beams back down to the planet with McCoy and two crewmen, Green (Bruce Watson) and Sturgeon (John Arndt). They spread out to search, but Crater slips away.": Too much too quickly I think. How do they determine? An examination? (And why did they not do that first?) Why does Kirk beam back down? (And would "transports" be better here?) and for what are they searching? Crater slips away from who, and how? Just a little more detail required I think.
  • I've edited this to be more specific. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kirk and McCoy find Sturgeon's body, unaware that Green is dead too": Not sure about this. We don't actually know that Green is dead, so this is rather abrupt. How is it conveyed in the episode?
  • Only because the creature turns up appearing as Green and later scans show only a single inhabitant (Crater) of the planet. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, I have a vague memory (I'm a long way from being a Star Trek fan, but remember bits of this episode) of Green standing over his own body. Is that from this episode? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to look it up on Trekcore (a good website for screengrabs) and you're right [8]. Miyagawa (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Green" roams the halls": Halls? Corridors, surely?
  • "attacking several crew members": Are any killed?
  • "They stun him": How?
  • "out of affection": For Crater or Nancy?
  • I'm a bit confused after the third paragraph of "plot" where the action is taking place. The ship or the planet?
  • I've added a line to the end of the previous paragraph to make it clear that they return to the Enterprise. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so Kirk orders "McCoy" to administer truth serum": The first time I read this, I missed that this was not the real McCoy. Maybe spell it out that this was the creature. Also, where is the actual McCoy? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made it clear it's a fake McCoy. The real one is still in his cabin where we find him later. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writing: More copy-editing done, please feel free to revert anything. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • We are using Roddenberry's original "pitch" but we need to make it clear to whom he is pitching it. I'm also a little concerned that we are verging into OR here. As this is a primary source, we need to be very careful, and when we say "The plot featured in "The Man Trap" appeared in Gene Roddenberry's original pitch for Star Trek" we are interpreting the source. The plot in that pitch is sufficiently different to the broadcast story to make this not just a straightforward fact; in reality, only the title is the same. If we are going to go further than say that a story called The Man Trap featured in the pitch, and give an outline of that plot, we really need another source which makes this claim.
  • I've edited this to make clear that the same title was used in the pitch in order to remove the OR problem. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The story was handed to Lee Erwin": Would it be more encyclopaedic to say that Erwin was commissioned to produce a treatment (or a full script, whichever it was)
  • "decided to use the 1953 science fiction novel The Syndic by Cyril M. Kornbluth as the basis for the story": It's not quite clear here who decided to use it; Johnson or Black?
  • Johnson - edited to be more specific. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roddenberry felt that Johnson's treatment was wrong": Wrong how? Badly written? Not what he wanted in a story?
  • Simply that it didn't initially fit his vision of the series; most of it was in Roddenberry's head at the time as all Johnson would have had to go on was the series bible. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're still a little light on what happened to Erwin. Had he produced a script, or just the treatment? How did he take it? Why was he moved on? Did he ever write anything else for Star Trek?
  • I've added a little more - he was paid a bonus for his treatment (I haven't seen anything that said he wrote a full script, and I'm sure that would have been leaked at some point if he had) and later wrote an episode in the third season (which I've added as a note). Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have now got the part about the "kill fee" (which I'd never heard of; learn something new every day!), but we already say that he was paid in full to terminate his contract. Is this duplication or two separate fees? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two different payments. Erwin probably didn't complain too much because it seems he was paid more for his treatment not being used than if it had been... and they wondered why Star Trek kept going massively over budget. I've edited it to say that it was two separate payments. Miyagawa (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so the ability for the creature to make apparitions was added back into the story": Was it ever in the original story, or just in Roddenberry's pitch?
  • I've edited this to say it was in the pitch, not the original story. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stan Robertson at NBC agreed with the need for more action, and suggested to Roddenberry that they may wish to get medical advice over whether the draining of a chemical from a person would kill them instantly.": I'm not sure how seeking medical advice is going to give more action to the story.
  • Yes, that shouldn't have been connected like that - I've added an "also" before "suggested". Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the creature in "The Man Trap" could be the last of the species, comparing it to the reduction in numbers of American bison since the European colonization of the Americas, which Roddenberry found intriguing": What was he comparing? You can't compare a creature to a reduction in numbers.
  • I've just re-read the source and he pretty much does, although this would have been from the sixties and he thought the Bison were going extinct. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of which was to restore the name "The Man Trap"": Again, I'm not sure that it technically ever was called Man Trap, unless we are doing some OR on the pitch.
  • "adding that "There could have been a hell of a lot more art in Star Trek if GR had kept his hands off the scripts."": This is a slightly meaningless quote. Can we clarify what he means by this?
  • I've removed the quote and replaced with an interpretation of what he's getting at. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "might not properly understand the series off the basis of "The Man Trap"": Again, this is vague. What does he mean?
  • I've added that he was referring to the characterisation specifically. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although he was concerned that viewers might not properly understand the series off the basis of "The Man Trap", admitting that he did not like Spock and was concerned that the character would not be understood from this one episode": This is a bit clumsy; are these two separate concerns, or the same concern expressed in two ways? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're linked, but I've broken it into two separate sentences now. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson was pleased with the final episode, although he was concerned that viewers might not properly understand the series off the basis of "The Man Trap" due to differences in characterisation": Still not quite right; what differences? Between the characters in this story and in the whole series? Needs to be a bit clearer. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added further detail as I've alluded to but wasn't as specific about previously. Miyagawa (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Break edit

Filming

  • "predominantly shot on the bridge": Can we be more precise here? At first, I imagined we were over water! Is there a link, or can we spell it out bridge of the Enterprise?
  • "and Whitney later recalled that the operator could see right up her skirt throughout the shoot and would occasionally try to get personal with her using the puppet": Not quite sure we have encyclopaedic tone here, so I think some rewording is needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the "gets personal" to a more straightforward "grope" as I think that was what was being suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creature:

  • "Daniels had some apprehension about using a monster of the week format, asking "Do you go for cheap thrills or a more intelligent approach?", adding that they decided to "treat everything as if it were real" in order to ensure that the audience bought into it.": Is there a link for "monster of the week", and should it be in quotation marks? And this is a long sentence; the part after "adding" does nit quite fit and perhaps needs to be a separate sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to add a brief mention that I'm aware that there is a publicity photo of Kirk and the creature which would be free use right now because all the Star Trek images from that era did not have their copyright renewed. However, we only upload the ones onto Commons where we can directly evidence precisely when they were published (which is usually through someone selling them on eBay with the original documentation for it attached). We're building up some images now, although the eBay sellers have realised what we're doing and are now masking the images or avoiding uploading scans of the relevant documents. But hopefully at some point, we'll get the image for this. We certainly already got it for "Spock's Brain" so anything is possible. Miyagawa (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Themes: Not too keen on this section. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • " demonstrated a mantra within the series": A mantra is a sacred phrase, so this is really not the right word here. And you can't demonstrate a mantra.
  • "the original series showed that predators such as the salt vampire were considered to be a lower life form and therefore should be destroyed": How does it show that something is considered. I think I'm missing the meaning here. Either they were considered in the series, or it showed it as a fact. We can't have both.
  • Removed "considered to be" to present it as fact. There was no consideration in the series, just that the reviewer felt that was what the show was demonstrating. Miyagawa (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the argument is presented that such creatures should not be killed; however, Geraghty felt that the writers sought to ensure that viewers did not feel any sympathy for the creature by revealing its true appearance as it died": What argument? Who is presenting it? I'm a bit lost by this. And we've just compared it to a helpless dog... This might need a rethink,
  • I've redrafted this and the surrounding lines. I hadn't realised how contradictory they sounded when I first wrote them. Miyagawa (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it undoubtedly troubled McCoy for some time after the event": I really don't think this belongs in this article.
  • I've removed that line and the corresponding image. Miyagawa (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "David Greven, in his book Gender and Sexuality in Star Trek, compared the creature from "The Man Trap" to T'Pol's (Jolene Blalock) actions towards Captain Jonathan Archer (Scott Bakula) in the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Twilight". He considered T'Pol to be "draining him of life force", in a similar manner to the salt vampire.": And again, in the context of this episode this is irrelevant, and meaningless to the general reader. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Driveby comment: I think it's a shame to see genuine academic analysis being removed from the article. Perhaps an effort could be made to (more) clearly state the significance of the claims for this episode. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the McCoy line back in, although in an edited form (and therefore I can add the image back too). However I've left the Star Trek: Enterprise reference off, as I take the point from Sarastro that it wasn't relevent to this article (but I'm sure it'll be welcome at the article for "Twilight"). Miyagawa (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A vampiric alien is a recurring idea in science fiction television series..." and the following paragraph: I'm vaguely worried by this, as it looks like synthesis; do sources about this episode make these comparisons, or is it just a fairly random list? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Muir source actually does - it specifically mentions the Babylon 5 episode as well as "The Man Trap". Miyagawa (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Support with a heavy copy-editing disclaimer: I'm pretty happy with this now, and think it meets the FA criteria. I have one point above but I've reached the end of the article and there are no other major issues other than the vampire point. I should point out though that I've copy-edited this quite heavily now, which may make my support slightly questionable; therefore I'd like to wait for a few more eyes before I switch to full support. Otherwise, I think this is a pretty comprehensive account of this episode. I'll have another look through and if no-one gets to the source review I'll look at that too. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "the last of his kind": Did Kirk refer to the creature as male at this point?
  • "he hated the work": What work?
  • I've changed this to specifically say the music created for "The Man Trap". Miyagawa (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although I have a few comments that might be worth looking into. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • We repeatedly refer to "The Original Series" in areas of the article discussing the events of the 1960s, but of course the show would not gain this moniker until several decades later; should we be using it, or should we just use "Star Trek"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is just easier to use The Original Series to differentiate from the franchise in it's entirety. It isn't what it was called at the time, but it is what it is referred to as now. Miyagawa (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an image of the alien for "The creature" section? It would probably be under copyright, but I think that we could find an appropriate fair usage license in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also - there is actually a publicity photo from the time of Kirk and the creature, which we would be able to use if we could get access to an original copy to ensure there were no copyright markings on it (none of the others seen from this period have them). No publicity photos of Star Trek from this period had their copyright renewed, and so they're all out of copyright. But we've only been uploading the ones to commons that we can definitively prove this. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further update - was in the process of uploading a fair use shot to EnWiki and it said that the file name was already in use on Commons. So I went and checked what was being called "Salt Vampire" there and it turns out someone has done a rather good full length drawing of the creature and added it to Commons. So I've added that instead. Miyagawa (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- unless I missed them we need reviews for image licensing and source formatting/reliability (Sarastro1 could be prepared to volunteer for the latter; you can list a request for the former at the top of WT:FAC). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added a request for an image review. Miyagawa (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review: Spot-checks not done. All sourcing looks to be reliable and of a suitable high quality. All formatting looks correct. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing review There are five images used on this article:

  • Two (George Clayton Johnson & drawing) have acceptible creative commons licenses (attribution and sharealike) - good
  • One (Roddenberry) is clearly in the public domain via NASA... and cropped from a fantastic featured picture on Wikimedia Commons - good
  • Two (Jeanne Bal; DeForest Kelley) are claimed public domain (publicity photos, no copyright marks, 1923-1977).
    • These look acceptable to me, but I am still learning my way around image reviews and I've never come across this before so I thought I'd mention it.

So, I think we're all good on images. - Saskoiler (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note -- you have a few duplicate links, pls check if they're really warranted; you can install this script to highlight them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2016 (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/The_Man_Trap/archive1&oldid=730139122"