Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek V: The Final Frontier/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 not promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 8 June 2011 [1].

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier[edit]

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? ...that that Kraft created a Star Trek-branded marshmallow dispenser as a tie-in for this film, the one that nearly killed the Star Trek franchise? Learn more from this article! I think it meets criteria, natch, after a GAN and Peer Review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • I notice you're using a single "Reeves-Stevens" for shortened citations to the work by Judith and Garfield. However, given that you have works by both one and two Shatners, this could create some confusion as to which a "Shatner" shortened citation refers to
  • Use a consistent formatting for Kraemer citations
  • Page(s) for Schultes?
  • Tietelbaum or Teitelbaum?
  • No citations to Okuda 2003
  • Check for consistency on small details - for example, whether "Sec." is capitalized or not
  • Newspaper citations without weblinks need page numbers
  • Note 59, 127: formatting
  • Be consistent in whether you use website URLs or organization names as publishers
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Note 126: which The Advertiser?
  • Use ndashes instead of doubled hyphens
  • Note 130: why include publisher location here but not for other books?
  • Should give page ranges for journal references
  • Be consistent in how editions and works within larger works are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the look. I think I've addressed many of the above issues. One book is by Shatner with a coauthor (Kreski) so I was hoping that would be enough disambiguation for the other Shatner book (solely written by Lisbeth Shatner). As for the ref you describe, Anthony Pascale, the site owner and editor-in-chief has been cited as a Star Trek expert (to the point that he's featured on the film's Blu-Ray editions) and has been cited by CBS, USA Today and the Globe and Mail, among others. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm fine with Shatner & Kreski, the one I'm worried about is Lisabeth Shatner versus William and Elizabeth Shatner. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have any suggestions for rectifying it? It'd just be kind of weird to use the year of publication as a disambig only for those two refs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Shatner & Shatner? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, despite the title as (William) Shatner's "personal account", the entire book is solely credited to his daughter so that feels a tad disingenuous. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Units

  • It says "110-degree heat". If it doesn't use Celsius, it needs to say what the unit is and provide a conversion into Celsius.
  • It says "100-degree fahrenheit heat". Fahreneheit needs a capital letter. It needs a conversion into Celsius.

Lightmouse (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parrot of Doom comments[edit]

As a self-confessed fan of all things Trek (although I'm not one of those wierdos parodied so effectively on SNL) this caught my eye. I'll review it as I read it, but here are some early points I noted:

  • The plot section is a little simplistic. I don't think you need to go into much more detail, but "Learning of Enterprise's mission, the Klingon Captain Klaa decides to fight Kirk for personal glory." is a good example. Who Klaa is, and where he is, needs to be explained. For all we know he might be camping with the others.
  • "On Nimbus III, the Enterprise crew discovers that renegade Vulcan Sybok" - why not "that a renegade Vulcan named Sybok"?
  • "Sybok wants to use a ship to reach the mythical planet Sha Ka Ree, the place creation began" - why not "the place where creation supposedly began"?
  • "Sybok uses his unique ability to reveal and mend the innermost pain of a person" - what unique ability? Don't presume the reader already knows this, just say he has a unique ability, tell us what it is, and then say what he does with it.
  • "Enterprise successfully breaches the barrier, pursued by Klaa's vessel" - Klaa has a vessel?
  • "The others doubt a being who would inflict harm on people for pleasure; Sybok realizes the entity is not God." - actually, "The others doubt that a being who would inflict harm for pleasure could be God" is more accurate.
  • In the Cast section, there may be a problem with tense - for instance, Shatner doesn't "play" Kirk, he "played" Kirk.

More to come, but it looks like a very interesting read. Parrot of Doom 16:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the comments. I've taken a stab at addressing the above. For the cast section, I'm modeling it after other film FAs, which treat the portrayal as a present tense thing (c.f., Changeling (film).) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shatner put himself into the best shape he had been in years" - that sounds too colloquial to me, what he actually did was a lot of aerobics and strength training to improve his physical fitness.
  • "He woke at 4am every day during filming, no matter what time he fell asleep" - why is this relevant to the previous sentence?
  • "Leonard Nimoy portrays the Vulcan Spock." - there's more than one Vulcan in the film series, and in this film. And actually, he's half-Vulcan.
  • " He did not tell Shatner this so as to not embarrass him" - that reads awkwardly, as though another reason for his not telling him is missing - "he didn't buy the lollipop for Jane, he bought the lollipop for Peter"
  • "Kelley was content to let Shatner direct, noting that the ambition had deserted him years earlier and after seeing the difficulties Nimoy faced on set" - why wouldn't he be content? Was there some underlying tension?
  • "Takei said that despite the pressure to complete the film on time" - what pressure? Nothing about studio pressure has been mentioned thus far.
  • "The biggest challenge Takei faced was learning to ride horses for the film" - was this Takei's claim?
  • "Bill Shepard cast additional roles. He combed through initial auditions for promising actors, then presented his choices to Shatner." - bit awkward, perhaps "Casting Director? Bill Shepard was in charge of casting additional roles, and after combing through initial auditions from promising actors, presented his choices to Shatner." or similar.
  • "Additional players include Todd Bryant as Captain Klaa" - since Spock's race is mentioned, perhaps Klaa's should be too?
  • "Bryant was playing ping pong at a beach party when a casting director approached him for the role" - the casting director didn't take the role from Bryant, he offered him the role (replace role with another noun if you don't follow).
  • "Bryant performed his audition twice after Shatner requested he redo his performance speaking in Klingon" - one audition in English and one in Klingon, or one in English and two in Klingon?
  • "Williams-Crosby thought Vixis was Kirk's girlfriend when she arrived for her audience" - audience or audition?
  • "and recalled that it was "fun" to play a villain" presumably this recollection was made after the film was shot, and not at her audition?
  • "diplomats to Nimbus III" - I'm not clear on the terminology but I don't think one can be a diplomat "to" a country or place. Parrot of Doom 16:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • "During the television series," - what television series?
  • "Shatner and Nimoy's lawyers drafted what Shatner termed a "favored nations clause", with the result that whatever Shatner received—e.g., a pay raise or script control—Nimoy also got and vice versa." - this sentence implies that filming for TOS occurred at the same time as The Final Frontier, especially as the following sentence implies that ST3 and ST4 were shot before TOS. Some kind of reference to dates/years are needed here, perhaps "during the original series, shot between 19xx and 19xx, Shatner and Nimoy's lawyers had drafted..."
  • "When he signed on to reprise the role of Captain Kirk in The Voyage Home following a pay dispute, Shatner was promised he could direct the next film.[12] Shatner had previously directed plays and television episodes.[1]" - I suggest merging and rearranging these two sentences as its a little confused.
  • "Shatner settled on his idea for the film's story, influenced by televangelists on television at the time" - the film's story hadn't then been set in stone.
  • "While The Voyage Home was still filming" - this makes the earlier assertion "Before he was officially given the director's job" seem a bit unclear. When exactly was he promised the director's chair, and when did he settle on his idea for The Final Frontier?
  • "Not everyone was happy with the story. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry objected to the search for God in general" - presumably he objected to characters in Star Trek searching for God, and not people in the real world searching for God?
  • "Loughery was forced to stop work on the script after the Writers Guild of America went on strike" - after they went on strike, or when they went on strike?
  • "production was further delayed when Nimoy began working on The Good Mother." - was this timing problem a result of the strike?
  • "During the downtime Shatner began writing a screenplay idea which placed his television cop character T. J. Hooker in the future; the idea became the TekWar science fiction series" - what does this tell us about Star Trek?
  • "Shatner also reconsidered elements of the Star Trek V story; Sybok's character was softened and made more sympathetic" - who did this, Shatner or Loughery?
  • "betrayed by the revised script" - how can anyone feel betrayed by a script? Don't you mean its author?
  • "The script was also rewritten to please Nimoy and Kelley" - why didn't they like the earlier script?
  • "in spite of the writers' strike cutting into the film's pre-production" - did the production company really rush the film into production to spite the writers? Parrot of Doom 10:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Implemented changes. For some of the chronology questions, I really can't answer them--the literature is vague on anything beyond sequence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think then you should attempt to draw attention away from those things - if when I'm writing an article I find the sources don't give me the information I need, I just gloss over it. After all, if they don't feel it's important, neither do I. There are still some minor issues above which I haven't stricken. Parrot of Doom 14:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure how I'm to gloss over it any more than it is. I can only present the facts, and unfortunately for some of the above I can't answer the questions, but the info is still important. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well for instance, if you don't know why Nimoy and Kelly didn't like the earlier script, just mention that the final script was approved by all, "met everyone's approval", etc. If you can't clarify Nimoy's "Good Mother", just say he had "other commitments". Parrot of Doom 16:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It says earlier on that Nimoy and Kelley objected to their characters abandoning Kirk. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fair point. I'd suggest though that the script wasn't re-written to please them, it was re-written to address their concerns. Parrot of Doom 16:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just a quick note, I'll be away for the weekend but will continue this review on Monday/Tuesday. It looks comprehensive enough to me, just needs a copyedit and I'll be happy to support. I'll help with that if you like, once I've run through the rest of it. Parrot of Doom 20:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • That would be most appreciated. I've hit all the remaining concerns listed above, I believe (I've generalized the Takei piece about pressure, if you think it should be cut and left to the rest of the development I guess that's fine too.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Design
  • "especially with Rodis' designs for Shatner's most epic shots" - what does this mean?
  • "Shatner praised his costume designs as being futuristic yet real" - colloquialism, "yet real" should be reprhased or quoted.
  • "After being disappointed by the costume designers they approached to realize Rodis' ideas, Shatner suggested to Bennett that Rodis become the costume designer as well." - did Shatner and Bennett approach costume designers, or Shatner and Rodis? Also, why was Rodis designing costumes when he wasn't then the costume designer?
  • " The production hired Dodie Shepard" - 'the production' can't hire people, but producers and companies can.
  • "The production picked Kenny Myers" ditto
  • " Myers discussed the sketches with Shatner and developed nicknames for the resulting planned characters" - I don't understand what a resulting planned character is. Either it's a planned character, or a resulting character, but surely not both?
  • "Shatner hired Richard Snell as makeup supervisor, advising him to make each Klingon forehead more distinctive" - more distinctive than what?
    • "advising him to make each Klingon forehead distinct" - distinct from what?
  • "that the designer could convey his futuristic yet grounded aesthetic." - whose futuristic yet grounded aesthetic, Shatner's or Zimmerman's?
  • "Tim Downs scouted possible locations for location filming." - repetition of location, suggest you find a suitable synonym.
  • "Because of practical considerations, he looked for a location that could stand in for three different venues without the production having to change hotels or move unnecessarily:" - you seem to be repeating yourself a few times here
Filming
  • "Shortly before the beginning of location shooting, the Hollywood Teamsters' Union went on strike" - who are they, and why were they on strike? One might assume that they hated Star Trek.
  • "With deadlines looming, the production searched for non-union drivers despite the threat that the Teamsters might retaliate" - risk, or threat? Who made the threat?
  • "Spock watches Kirk's ascent—and saves him when he slips and falls—via levitating boots" - make clear this is a movie scene, we're in the real world here.
  • "After the Yosemite shots, location shooting moved to desert locales. Nimbus III and its town, Paradise City, were recreated in Yosemite and the Mojave Desert." - I thought they moved to the desert, if so how could they still film in Yosemite?
  • "At Paramount, the production filmed all the scenes" - production, or crew?
  • "Production was smoother on set, and the production approached shooting ahead of schedule. " - this makes no sense.
  • "The crew fabricated a stand-in set for the God planet location for additional footage" - neither, I'm afraid, does this.
  • "Spock's catch of the falling Kirk off Yosemite was replicated by creating a set of the forest floor, rotated ninety degrees" - this should be shortened and moved near the part about his rocket boots.
  • "The cast celebrated the end of filming the last week of December 1988.[59] Shatner scheduled the campfire scenes to be the last ones shot, after which the cast and crew had a small celebration before a traditional wrap party later" - so when exactly did they celebrate? This isn't at all clear. Parrot of Doom 11:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addressed most of the above. I left the Yosemite set in the latter section as it's not location shooting, and the flow of the section is roughly chronological from locations to sets and I'd like to keep it that way. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Effects
  • "The production chose Bran Ferren's effects company Associates and Ferren after soliciting test footage from studios representing their approaches to the film's main effects—the planet Sha Ka Ree and the godlike being residing there." - I'm not sure what's being said here. Certainly the "after soliciting" should come first in the sentence, but the use of "studios" is confusing - do you mean effects companies, or film studios, or film sets? In essence, are you saying they got a bunch of companies to produce some test footage, and chose the one they thought did the best job? Also, use of "production" instead of "producers/crew/etc"
  • "and unsuccessfully campaigned to do the effects for The Abyss" - what does this teach us about ST5?
  • "produced on the east and west coasts" - coasts of what?
  • "Associates and Ferren had three months to complete the effects work—around half the usual time" - industry-wide "usual time", or star trek films "usual time"?
  • "but the first pass, with all the things [Shatner] wanted, was [$5 or $6] million." - who said this, Winter?
  • "with all the main heads" - this needs explaining for the layman
  • "The Rockman climax of the film was ultimately dropped due to difficulties during filming" - what Rockman climax? You introduce this as though the reader will already know what the Rockman is, whereas until this point he's called a "rock monster"
  • "ILM delivered the main Enterprise model to Associates and Ferren" - Enterprise should be italicised, also, again, the reader hasn't been introduced to the concept that ILM designed the model. You should preface this with something like "ILM, designers of the Enterprise scale model used in previous films, delivered..." or similar.
    • Now it says "ILM delivered the main Enterprise model, which they had created, to Associates and Ferren" but earlier in the prose it says ILM were too busy to work on the film. You need to make clear where the model came from.
  • "However, scenes which included the Enterprise in Spacedock" - what's a Spacedock? I know what it is, but the reader mightn't.
  • "The opticals were then assembled in Manhattan before being sent west;[70] for example, bluescreen footage of the motion controlled miniatures was filmed in Hoboken, New Jersey" - how is filming something, an example of assembling something?
  • "a single finished shot of a ship moving through space could require more than fifty pieces of film." - could require - is that speculation, or should this be "required"?
  • "through which light was cast" - shadows are cast, light is thrown (or shone). Parrot of Doom 20:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've addressed the above. The "assembled" word is used because the finished film is comprised of plates that are literally assembled before the final print. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I work in television but still I don't understand what you've written there. A layman would never be able to grasp it. If this were an article about film processes then some degree of technical expertise might be expected of a reader, but this is a more general article and such things should be explained either with links, or prose. Parrot of Doom 22:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editing
  • "In early test screenings, the film received negative previews. Of the first test audience, only a small portion considered the film "excellent", a rating that most other Star Trek films had enjoyed." - you say "early test screenings" but mention only one instance. And how can a film receive a negative preview - don't you mean a negative review?
  • "Segments of the film were re-edited for the wide release" - presumably you mean general release (not wide, as in aspect)? Parrot of Doom 22:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - Great job with the article. Just curious, in the past there was a paragraph that contained an interesting piece of information about the film's home media release. It stated the following:

In 1991, the film premiered on national television on the CBS network. Certain scenes however, were edited out; such as the bar scene featuring the triple breasted dancing cat woman, as well as a scene on the bridge featuring Scotty and Uhura receiving new orders from Starfleet. The scene in the turbolift with Kirk commenting that he "could use a shower" was also cut from the broadcast. Furthermore, the campfire scene with Kirk, Spock and McCoy was edited in length removing the 'Row, Row, Row Your Boat' sing-along.

Has that entry ever been able to be properly sourced? Was the lack of reliable sourcing the reason it was deleted from the article? DeWaine (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to verify the edited scenes, no... that appears to be unverified by a reliable source so far as I can tell. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarastro1 (talk • contribs) 19:40, May 23, 2011

Comments, inclined to: An excellent piece of work. It seems very comprehensive and is engaging and easy to follow. Just a few points to clear up, mainly prose related.

  • "after seeing the difficulties Nimoy faced on set": A little tantalising! What were the difficulties?
I'd still like to know what he found difficult when he was directing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that he had been mistreated by Nimoy" Again, details may help the reader.
  • As Nimoy and Kelly were unhappy over their characters' betrayal of Kirk, could it be made clear what they did? The problem seems to have arisen when Loughery took over the script, rather than the plot outlined earlier in the section. What did they do to betray Kirk?
  • "Production went much smoother on set…": Sounds a little clumsy. What about "Production was smoother" or "Production went [much] more smoothly…"
  • "even his cost estimates were over budget": Why "even"? Cost estimates are presumably lower ones, but this does not quite make sense to me, and this could be explained further.
  • "The model had been damaged…" Presumably the Enterprise model, but the previous sentence also mentions the spacedock.
  • "The "God column" that the false god appeared in was created by a rotating cylinder that appeared as a column of light." This is slightly clumsy and does not quite make sense. Presumably the cylinder did not create the God column, but was used to create it. However, I'm not entirely clear how this would work unless it was illuminated in some way. What about: "The "God column" in which the false god appeared was created by rotating a cylinder [and….]; the result appeared as a column of light."
  • "shots that showed the creature indirectly with lightning and smoke." Not quite clear; was the creature being represented by lightning and smoke (i.e. indicating it's presence), or was it made from lightning and smoke?
  • reedited: or is it re-edited?
  • "Segments of the film were reedited for the wide release." Is this the five minutes mentioned in the next sentence or something else? It seems odd that such minor changes would alter reviews. Is there anything specific that was altered by the edits?
  • "Sha-ka-ree in music section, Sha Ka Ree everywhere else.
  • "although it and other sequels such as failed to make expected returns": Missing words after "such as"? --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review, Sarastro. I've taken a stab at the above. The five minute edits were indeed the only changes, although you'd be surprised what minor pacing issues throughout the film can be ameliorated by a second here or there, in addition to more drastic alterations. I've tried to clear it up a little. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm more than happy with the changes and I am now supporting; I've left some items unstruck (I'm assuming these are the ones you have no further info on) in case any more details come up, but they are not enough to prevent my switching to support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


remarks rating section needs to start with the rating from imdb and rottentomatos for leading overviewrm2dance (talk)

IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes didn't exist when this film came out... they are hardly indicative of any qualitative statistic that would be useful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check. One fair use (good rationale), free images check out licence wise. Several seem below FA level in the quality of captions, however: Shatner needs a trailing full stop ("period") and File:El Capitan 1.jpg could use a caption that explains the relevance of the image / leads the editor into the article. The file description page itself could use a better description, in fact (obvious not a FACR, but nice nonetheless). I feel the article could also support an additional non-free image of the cast, or an important scene from the film, but that would have to be reasoned on a case-by-case basis. (Also noticed that The Advertiser needs DABing, btw.) Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 22:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. I've tweaked the captions. I was considering a non-free image, but compared to the other films articles I've been working on there's not as much highly technical lingo for explaining the effects, and I wasn't really sure what I had that was defensible per NFCC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:16, 2 June 2011 (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_V:_The_Final_Frontier/archive1&oldid=1044076261"