Talk:Dominion War/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Super Mario Man 20:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Prose: The article as submitted at WP:GAN contained quite widespread prose problems. I believe that a series of copy-edits has rectified the situation, but I would encourage further checks to ensure that the article runs in a smooth and consistent fashion. As an American topic, American writing systems would be the expectation for an article of this sort: hence, the spelling should be "realize" rather than "realise", with "Dr. Bashir" instead of "Dr Bashir". As noted below, dates provided in references should not combine two or more styles; furthermore, numbers of days should not be ordinals (e.g. "9th"). As the article's subject is from fiction, the tense used for in-universe plot detail and description should predominantly be the present.

Manual of Style: Again, I have copy-edited the article thoroughly to remove clear problems or inconsistencies. However, one definite problem that remains is the brief lead section. At just one paragraph, the introduction is really too short for an article of this length, and should therefore be expanded. I would recommend using the last two sentences of the current lead as a starting point for at least one additional paragraph, which could chart the production and reception aspects of the Dominion War arc in greater detail. For the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and its elements, the first paragraph could be lengthened with a few basic explanations: for example, mention that a space station is the primary setting of the series, and that the production company was Paramount Television, to complement the description of Deep Space Nine as an "American science-fiction television series".
Conception:
After 18 months of Deep Space Nine exposition, the producers decided to characterize this as an "anti-Federation".
Up to this sentence, the subject has been the Gamma Quadrant, but presumably the "this" refers to the Dominion.

Executive producer Michael Piller suggested the idea that the Founders of the Dominion be the race to which Odo belongs, towards the end of Season Two, and discovered that Behr and Wolfe had also discussed this possibility.
Does the clause in bold refer to the end of production on Season Two, or the end of its broadcast? A word appears to be missing here.
Development: Season Three:
Behr became full executive producer at the midpoint of the season, after the departure of Michael Piller.
Since names such as Behr and Piller appear quite regularly in the article, would it make sense to explain their contributions in a specially-dedicated paragraph in the "Conception" section? This would avoid short sentences, such as the one highlighted above, which could distract the reader from the article's principal subject. Furthermore, it would eliminate the need for references to "writer", "producer" or "executive producer" at the start of each section, which to me make the text repetitive in some places. The statement above could also do with a source. On a side note, what role did Jim Crocker (mentioned once, in the "Conception" section) perform in the production of Deep Space Nine?
Reception: Critical reception:
He selected "The Search", "In the Pale Moonlight" and "Far Beyond the Stars" as their favorite episodes for their portrayal of darker themes and creating a change in direction
His own personal favourites, or both his and others'? Can this be clarified?
Spin-off media:
The URL beside DeCandido's name is registering as dead, and redirects to a home page rather than the subpage cited. It would also be better, with regard to the MoS, to relocate the URL to the main "External links" section rather than leave it in the article text.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No problems with the sources not being reliable, just their presentation in a number of places:
Not all episode references (e.g. "The Jem'Hadar", reference 18) include both "writer" and "story" credits. Does this mean that the personnel responsible for the plot concept also went on to write the final script, or do the writer credits just need to be added to the citations?

Reference 8, the Season One DVD, would benefit from Template:Cite video, as used for 2 and 17. If 17 includes an ASIN number, should one be added for the other DVD references?

Why are references 61 and 74, both from interviews in the Erdmann and Block book, presented in a different manner to references such as 16, which use a template?

Reference 82 (the Fontana interview) could be improved with author and/or date information, if it exists.

Could details such as page number, publisher and ISBN be added to reference 94 from Blair?

References 17, 21, 36, 57, 59, 71, 77 (script citations) partly use the dates system of MONTH/DAY/YEAR, contrasting with retrieval dates, which are listed in digits. Dates should be presented in a consistent manner throughout the article.

Finally, would you consider listing book sources with more than one citation attached (Erdmann and Block is the prime example) in a bibliography separate from the references list? Citations to such publications could then be presented in shorthand form with a page number (e.g. to use reference 2 as an example, "Erdmann and Block, 97") which would make the main list easier to navigate. However, this is more of a side suggestion than a review recommendation.
Synopsis:
This section would benefit if there were episode citations throughout its text. Currently, "Emissary" is cited, but no other episodes.
Conception:
Behr said that the earliest mention of the Dominion was purposely planted in the comic Season Two Ferengi episode, "Rules of Acquisition", to leave the audience with an impression of "how important could it be?"
Is this attributable to page 97 of the companion book cited further along in the "Conception" section? Quotations, in particular, need clear sourcing.

These three were intended to represent the front of an ancient civilization coupled together by fear, to contrast with the unity of the Federation enabled by bonds of friendship.
Again, which precise page is being cited? A rule of a minimum of one citation per sentence would increase verifiability. In the finale paragraph of "Conception", the first three sentences are not clearly tied to a particular reference: if reference 7 (IGN) is also intended to support preceding sentences, this could be made more explicit through duplication. I can perceive a similar scenario with the second paragraph of the subsection "Season Three: introducing the Founders": page 158 of the companion guide substantiates the final sentence, but the sourcing of the previous two sentences is either absent or ambiguous. As such, I would recommend increasing the frequency of citations in the "Development" section to one for each sentence.
Development: Season Two:
The actions of the Dominion are contrasted with the reactions of the regular characters to the Skrreea refugees.
Is there dialogue to support this statement? Without substantiation, it may border on interpretative, rather than descriptive, use of a primary source, which contradicts guidelines detailed at WP:PRIMARY.
Development: Season Three:
Regular characters observe the alien's struggle to adjust to a society with rules different to those of his native culture.
Like the comment on the Skrreea in "Sanctuary", this appears to exceed description and sail close to interpretation in the absence of dialogue quotations.

Further episodes investigate the psychology of the Jem'Hadar.
Which ones are these? Could these be cited?

The plot establishes an atmosphere of suspicion, initiated by the shapeshifters' abilities to assume other identities, which forms the basis of plots for Season Four.
Currently, this appears to be a statement of original thought based on a primary source, and would need attribution to a secondary source to avoid violation of WP:OR.
Development: Season Four:
This episode is one of a few in this season to explore themes of suspicion and paranoia, and their effect upon societies and relationships, building up to "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost".
Discussion of themes, in particular, requires citation of secondary sources. It cannot exist on the foundation of primary sources alone, since the presence of themes is not commonly explicitly evoked within character dialogue.

This seems to further the Founders' goal of the destabilization of the Alpha Quadrant as a prelude to their own invasion.
An episode is used as a citation at the end of this sentence, but is there dialogue to support the idea of political relations being threatened? "Seem" probably falls into the category of WP:WEASELWORDS.
Development: Season Six:
The episodes "Behind the Lines" and "A Time to Stand" (Season Six) require citation, preferably using Template:Cite episode as is the case for other episodes.

Dukat is the first but not the only character in Season Six to face the pain of loss in conflict.
Could other characters be offered here as examples?
Development: Season Seven:
Ronald D. Moore has stated, "We wanted to kill the Defiant as a statement on how tough the Breen were. We thought that would rock the characters and the audience."
The preceding recommendation about the "Rules of Acquisition" episode appears necessary here, for a different quotation. Which page(s) from the companion guide apply in terms of attribution?

Allusions to genocide contrast with ethical discussion concerning the engineered "Founders disease" and a potential cure.
A moral debate ensues on what constitutes genocide.
Character dialogue, presented in the same manner as "The Dogs of War" script excerpt further along the paragraph, would help to support these statements.

"Extreme Measures" needs a citation.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Major aspects: The article includes both in-universe plot detail and out-of-universe production and reception information in good balance.

Focus: As suggested in the response to Criterion 1, a few sentences to settle to issue of which production personnel did what, throughout the course of the Dominion War arc, would lend better structure to the article in terms of its coverage of production.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Some subjective words (e.g. in "Critical Reception", the assertion that O'Connor added "enticingly") have been removed. As it currently stands, the article maintains a neutral tone, and the critical sections are not skewed in favour of the opinions of a particular commentator.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Definitely in a stable condition.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The infobox image is necessary for identification of the article subject, and the illustrative image of the Jem'Hadar adds to the reader's understanding of the topic. However, File:USS Sitak and USS Majestic.png would have stronger justification if the caption mentioned the precise battle and episode depicted in the image.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This initial edit is just to open the review. I will submit comments in due course, after a thorough reading of the subject article. Super Mario Man 20:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies for the lateness in updating this page — other Wikipedia issues have cropped up in the interim. Super Mario Man 05:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article will be of Good standard if the issues detailed are addressed. Since its first GA review, the article has been balanced with the addition of real-world information, and its sourcing strengthened effectively. I shall place this review on hold for one week for other editors to make adjustments or perform additional copy-edits. Super Mario Man 20:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not feel that the article can meet the GA criteria without implementation of the suggested improvements. As a week has passed with no edits made to the article, I have failed this nomination for the time being. Feel free to renominate the article once the problems highlighted have been acted upon. All the best. Super Mario Man 00:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed all of the issues. I shall resubmit for another review. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]