Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek: First Contact/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 23:54, 3 October 2009 [1].

Star Trek: First Contact[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

After a peer review and some tweaks here and there, I think that this article meets criteria, natch. Read on if you want to learn about how you make a walking cybernetic being with clammy grey skin and a mechanical spine sexy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Though I've done some editing on article) , Images (both non-free and free) appear to be fine, but we need alt text on them. I tried on the poster image for a start. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other ones should all have alt text... can't believe I forgot about the infobox one though, thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is 1996 in film supposed to be linked like that? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I've always done it, and I've seen others do it, so... *shrug*. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • TrekMovie is generally blog-formatted, but it's the largest independent Star Trek news site according to the Chicago Tribune.[2] Either way I think both contributors used meet WP:SPS. John Tenuto, in addition to serving as merchandise editor at the site, is a professor of sociology whos pop-culture-inspired courses have made something of a splash;[3] Anthony Pascale is editor-in-chief, has been quoted widely by the more mainstream media[4][5][6] and is apparently close enough to the franchise-keepers that he recorded audio commentary for the Blu-ray release of First Contact. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The prose is mostly good. Promising candidate. I haven't scoured through the whole article, but count me as a Support as long as it's sifted through for MoS and the odd improvement to the prose.

  • Revert if you wish, but I am certain 1996 in film under "See also" will attract many more clicks that 1996 at the opening, which is "hidden", and worse, looks like a plain year-link. See WP:LINKING. Apart from that, the linking technique is excellent.
  • First para is about release, cast, award, etc. Then it bolts straight into a one-sentence summary of the plot. Can this be integrated smoothly into the second para? The paras need easy themes—hold the readers' hands through this.
  • "The script necessitated the creation of"—English can be ugly, and most of this is reasonably well written. How about "required"?
  • "collaborated to create": c ... c sounds; even "worked together to create", or "collaborated to make". Not sure these are the answer, but there's a better way somehow.
  • "Commenced". Plain and simple (i.e., Germanic): "started", or even "began".
  • Could to to be avoided in "moved to new sets to film ship-based scenes" by saying "moved to new sets for the ship-based scenes"?
  • "While Picard offers himself to the Borg in exchange for Data's freedom, Data refuses to leave." Not simultaneously, but "Although Picard ...".
  • The bullet list of cast members comes as a surprise. Can we have a sentence that leads smoothly into it? This is especially the case because each element in this list is just a nominal group.
  • Image sizes: my slight enlargements OK? Reduce if you don't like it, but a little larger than default would be good.
  • Sovereign-class image: ooh, bit wobbly with the copyright? Has anyone checked it? I'm glad that one is small. Please consider rationing the text in the caption, which wraps down and down. See MOS.
  • "50 mm to 70 mm focal lengths"—please see "Ranges" under User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Unit_symbols_and_abbreviations.2A. Tony (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've made all your recommended changes or attempted to. It didn't seem like the plot made any more sense in the second paragraph, but I reworded the beginning of it so it hopefully fits better; I also cut down the image caption a bit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media review (Support on criterion 3)
  • Support I think this is very well-written. I'm not much a fan of Star Trek, but I like how most of the article is more like a history piece than plot. One thing though, I was looking through and it doesn't look like all the numbers have nonbreaking spaces. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:NBSP not all units, etc. need a nonbreaking space, only items that belong together or would look awkward split; however you're right, I have added a few nbsp to the lead and other places I missed. Thanks for the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the only Star Trek movie I've seen so far, and a really impressive article. igordebraga ≠ 15:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Another fantastic film article from David! Especially loving the video clip; it adds an exciting new element. I suspect that my concerns will be minor and related to copy-editing, so I will go through the article and copy-edit where needed. I wanted to ask, though, before this action and lending my support, would you consider removing the bold formatting from the actors and roles in the "Cast" section? While we have applied this formatting traditionally with film articles, it is not in line with MOS:BOLD, and a film article should be able to survive without the formatting. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed quotation mark issues per MOS:QUOTE#Quotation marks. I want to make another observation. I understand that you moved the "Cast" section's paragraphs up to address Tony's concerns, but by doing so, there is an odd focus on the minor roles before the major roles. I recommend moving the paragraphs back (except for the very first sentence) and possibly adding a couple more summary-style sentences to the first one. This way, readers can be led by prose into the list of major roles, then they can read prose of the minor roles. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for implementing the changes. I've stripped out the bold formatting and reorganized the cast section. Better? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is better. :) I will give it a fuller read-through (only skimmed in first place for quotation mark fixes), see if there are any additional minor issues to iron out, and lend my support. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Steve T • C Looking good so far. I participated in the peer review a couple of months back, so most of my issues with the article were resolved back then. A few items remain from that list, as well as a couple of new ones. Nothing major, and I anticipate supporting at some point. Let's get to it then:
    • "The television cast is joined by ... Academy Award-nominated actors James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard."—I don’t see the relevance of "Academy Award-nominated" here; it lacks context, and some might see it as a bit promotional.
    • "In the film's plot, the crew of the USS Enterprise travel back in time to the year 2063 to save their future after the cybernetic Borg conquer Earth by changing the past."—all that time-hopping makes it a little clunky, and to those unfamiliar with the franchise, saying "back" to 2063 might stir up a little cognitive dissonance without the context of TNG's setting. Perhaps something like, "the crew of the USS Enterprise travels from the 24th to the 21st century to save humanity after the cybernetic Borg conquer the Earth by changing humanity's timeline."
    • "Braga and Moore wanted to feature the Borg in the plot, while producer Rick Berman wanted a story involving time travel. The writers combined the two ideas, changing the time period the Borg corrupted to the mid-21st century after worries that setting the film during the European Renaissance would be too kitsch"—at the point it's mentioned, it still hasn't been established that the original time-travel pitch had the story set during the Renaissance. This could be resolved by moving it up slightly, so it reads something like: "The writers combined the two ideas; they initially set the film during the European Renaissance, but changed the time period the Borg corrupted to the mid-21st century after fearing the Renaissance idea would be too kitsch."
    • "The film made $92 million in the United States and an additional $57.4 million in other territories, for a theatrical run of $146 million worldwide"—149.4 million?
    • "... the Borg Queen has grafted human skin onto Data, giving him the sensation of touch to obtain the android's encryption codes to the Enterprise computer."—it might not be clear to someone unfamiliar with the film why giving Data "touch" would allow the Borg Queen to get Data's copy of the encryption codes.
    • "Stewart noted that Picard was more physical in the film compared to his usual role."—physical as opposed to ... incorporeal? Perhaps try "physically active". I might be parsing that wrong, but as Stewart has the role, not Picard, maybe "compared to his usual depiction" or similar would be a better fit.
    • "Frakes did not have much difficulty directing and acting at the same time, having done so on the television series."—as this is from the horse's mouth on the DVD commentary, it might be better to temper the claim by using "Frakes said he ..." He might have had a torrid time of it, but we'd probably never hear that from him (I wouldn't trust the TNG cast as far as I can throw them, after hearing them describe Stuart Baird as a bona fide genius during the pre-release promotion of Star Trek: Nemesis!)
    • Perhaps link to redshirt at the first mention, rather than the second?
    • "Ridley Scott and John McTiernan reportedly turned the project down. Stewart met with one of the potential candidates and concluded that 'they didn't know Star Trek'."—do you think the implication here is that the director Stewart met was Scott or McTiernan? I don't think that's your intention, so perhaps the link between the two statements could be weakened.
    • "The lion's share of First Contact's effects"—I'm sure a print encyclopaedia wouldn't use "the lion's share" when it simply wants to say "most of", but YMMV.
    • "Acting was conflictingly received."—right then, Mr Fuchs, I've twitchingly overlooked most of your omissions of the definite article, as I'm not one to try to run roughshod over personal preference, but my body simply won't allow me to let that one pass without having some kind of fit. So here it is.
  • And that's pretty much it; as I say, most of everything else seems to have been cleared up in, and after, the peer review. Nice work. Steve T • C 10:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I've hit your above concerns; I added "about" to before $146 million because the sources are quite certain, it's most likely an error on the part of Box Office Mojo but I cannae' be certain (I don't have a better source anyhow). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As it's so prominent in the lead, it still produces a bit of a speedbump that I think readers will wonder over, even if they might not think to mention it on the talk page. Would it be better to instead summarise it more concisely as: "The film made $92 million in the United States, contributing to a theatrical gross of $146 million worldwide"? Steve T • C 09:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another fine instalment in David's Star Trek film article series, and probably the most comprehensive single source available about the film's development, production and reception. On the trekmovie.com source questioned above—and left for independent reviewers to judge—I'm happy with its use due to its continued reference in the mainstream media and its contributors' credentials ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). The prose is generally very good—in fact I'd say it came to FAC in a better starting condition than David's other Trek film articles, which required a bit more work in this area (don't take that as a slur, David—it's meant to reflect the noticeable improvement in your writing at each successive FAC nomination). All images seem to comply with fair-use guidance, and as for the video—I'm delighted that this could be the first film FA to feature a fair-use clip of the film in question. To ensure Wikipedia's continued relevance, it must adapt to changing web technology, and our best articles will have to eventually reflect this. As such, I fully support its inclusion; it's a bold move, and one that I hope will pay off. Nice work yet again, Steve T • C 09:49, 2 October 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:_First_Contact/archive1&oldid=1077422115"