Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek: First Contact/archive1

Star Trek: First Contact

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Continuing my lonesome quest to improve Wikipedia's coverage of all the Star Trek films, I've been working on this, the eighth installment. I'm sure it's in need of a good, stiff copyediting, but any opinions on any of the content in the article (and whatever should be?) I am happy to hear. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article looks to be in very good shape in terms of the content and structure. Given that you readily admit it could use another couple of passes on the prose side, I'll try to focus on content only, save where something is genuinely unclear. If you do want me to point out any writing niggles, let me know and I'll be happy to oblige. Steve ^T • C:

Lead

• It's mentioned that Braga and Moore "[moved] the time period the Borg corrupted from the European Renaissance to the mid-21st century" though at this point in the article it hasn't been established that the original [pitch? script? outline?] incorporated the Renaissance idea.
• "Cast member Jonathan Frakes was chosen to direct, to make sure the job fell to someone who understood Star Trek."—slightly unrepresentative of the article body, which says he was only chosen after other (non-Trek) directors turned the job down.
• The only major section of the article that seems to be not covered by the lead is "Themes"; I know not everything can be included, but considering how many times it was noted for its strong Moby Dick overtones, a sentence or two is easily justified.

Plot

• Though it's more or less within guidelines, it's perhaps a little long; the story isn't that complex, so maybe have another look for things that if removed would not impact on the reader's understanding of either the section or the article as a whole.

Cast

• "I didn't think you could do anything about the Borg without (my character)."—square brackets for the paraphrase?
• Missing cite at the end of the Krige entry.

Development

• "Paramount decided to produce another Star Trek feature for a holiday 1996 release."—perhaps the time of year would be better, or at least mention which holiday?
• "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."—the implication here is that the director Stewart met was Scott or McTiernan; I don't think that was your intention, so perhaps the link between the two statements could be weakened.
• Piped link to "fourth Alien film" should envelop "fourth".

Design

• A larger and less spartan ready room was created."— Star Trek actually misuses the term "ready room" (see link), so clarification might be required here to indicate we mean Picard's bridge-adjacent cabin.
• "Engineering was simulated"—ambiguous; perhaps better to spell out that this means the Engineering department/section.
• "The Vulcan ship was designed to resemble a starfish, a crab and a boomerang."—all at the same time? Just checking.

Release

• You mention the premiere date, but not the actual date the film opened in general release.
• Missing cite for the awards nominations.

Critical response

• "Critical response to First Contact was generally positive."—it’s that old nitpick of mine; because it's usually possible to find positive reviews for even the worst-received films, you need to avoid the impression of selective quoting. Fortunately, I don't think it would be difficult to find a cite for this.

General

• Some mild overlinking in places; it'll probably disappear as the article is tweaked between now and the inevitable FAC.
• Are you happy with all the fair-use rationales? Given the trouble I had getting this through FAC, they might be worth another look (though I know it's probably easier for a film like this—which comes from the imagination rather than history).

And that's all the weather. Steve ^T • C 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comments. As for the images, if push comes to shove I can eliminate the bridge shot as I'm not sure it displays enough detail or combination of elements. The others I think have pretty slam-dunk rationales, I need to upload a nice version of the Borg queen shot and tweak it to improve, prolly. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And if you really want to do a copyedit, don't let me stop you :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts to share below:

Lead section

• Use of "picture" in second sentence sounds like insider slang; may be best simplified by using "film" instead
• In the first paragraph, maybe establish the century in which the film starts out? That way, a new reader can know how far back they traveled to "the mid-21st century" mentioned later.
• Perhaps mention the year Star Trek Generations was released? Helps establish a time frame.
• Second sentence of second paragraph is a bit long; I suggest breaking it up where the semi-colon is.
• "The script called for" sounds slang-ish. Maybe "The script involved" or something similar?
• Expand "Designer" to "Production designer" to clarify his role more immediately
• "Many of the sets were completely new; filming began with weeks of location shooting in Arizona and California before moving to ship-based scenes." The details should be organized differently for the semi-colon to work. Suggestion: "Filming began with weeks of location shooting in Arizona and California; filming then production moved to brand new sets to film ship-based scenes."
• "...remained one of the top ten grossing films for four weeks after release." I'm not sure if this detail is important enough for the lead section; more noteworthy would be ranking first for the first four weeks. Recommend leaving it to the article body.
• While I enjoy reading James Berardinelli's reviews, I'm not sure if I'd cite him alongside Ebert. He does not seem to have made a name for himself. His Wikipedia article doesn't show any kind of independently sourced background that endorses him.

Plot

• Establish when the film opens up to set the stage for how far back they travel.
• "venture outside the ship" may be too much of an Easter egg... maybe use "extra-vehicular activity" more directly in that sentence?

Cast

• Link to The Next Generation; it's the first time it's mentioned in the article body. I don't think the lead section should count for linking; it stands alone as an overview. It may be worth explaining more in the body about the film involved the cast of The Next Generation because of this disjointedness.
• As you mentioned before, you are not so confident about the image in "Cast". I have to echo this concern. It shows stuff, but nothing that to me would make the readers think, "Wow, I'm glad I got to see it, it helps me understand the article." It more borders on a visual treat. (The other two screenshots are golden, though!)
• I'm not so sure about the structure of content in "Cast"; it starts out talking about minor roles, then it lists the major roles. Any way to at least shape a summary paragraph for the main cast, list the major actors and roles, and move the paragraphs about minor roles to the end?

Development

• "The pair had written a number of Next Generation episodes, as well as the script for the preceding film." Maybe mention the Generations script first? It seems more relevant to open with that, then mention the additional credentials of episode-writing.
• "With this idea in mind"... if you start a new paragraph, it may help to re-state the idea.
• "budget of $45" Wow, inflation! :) Just throw the word "million" in there.
• "but First Contact was the first film" → "but First Contact was his first feature film"
• "The planned title of Resurrection was scrapped before the third draft of the script when Fox announced the title of the fourth Alien film" I think "before the third draft of the script" is a small detail that came off as confusing. It may be better to just say, "...was scrapped when Fox..."

Design

• "Following the destruction of the Enterprise-D in Generations" Sounds too in-universe, like a plot sentence. Maybe word it to ground it in reality more, like "The starship Enterprise-D was destroyed in the previous film, Generations, so the task for creating..."

Sheesh, this is a lot! :) Believe me, a lot of it is great already. Most of my suggestions are nitpicks. I have to go AFK (haven't used that acronym in a while) but I will be back to keep reading and suggesting. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Round 2:

Design

• "...to add texture, and slides of the..." I recommend breaking up the sentence here because this particular area has a lot of detail, and the reader could benefit from a full stop to digest the information about the model's panels, then move on.
• "ships that would read differently from a distance" Is there a simpler way to say this? Like "clearly look different from a distance"?
• "giving the bridge a cleaner look" I'm not sure what "cleaner" means in this context? I assume space was freed up, but "cleaner" didn't seem to match.
• "similar to the Enterprise-D designs" → "similar to the design in the Enterprise-D"
• "...scenes utilized..." → "...scenes used..." In most cases, the word "utilized" can be replaced by the simpler "used".
• "Several scenes were designed similar to those..." I'm not clear what the similar designs are. Ship design, set design, interior, exterior? Can this be explained any more?
• "...rather than ridiculous" I recommend the word "exaggerated"; I think it applies similarly.
• "Stewart began turning green" Just make it simpler and say that he became ill. Not all readers may be familiar with the concept of turning green! :)

Costumes and makeup

• "reminiscent of the television series but fresher" The word "fresher" could be replaced by one that's more accurate.
• "...so many changes during the course of the film, changing..." Change (heh) "changing" into "going" to vary in wording
• "Borg queen" Should be "Borg Queen", I believe, but wanted to make sure. It can be lowercase if you use it like "the queen" (after an initial mention of "Borg Queen", of course).
• The talk of the Borg Queen being more human than Alien makes me wonder if it's possible to link to Alien (Alien franchise)#Queen in some way? Did the citation say anything to suggest that it was an explicit comparison of queens?

GTG yet again... hope these suggestions so far help. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks again for the comments. There's no explicit mention of the Alien comparisons in the sources I have access to; I'm going to check the DVD special features, hopefully there's something there, and I'm also hunting for a special issue of Star Trek: The Magazine which I know had lots of info on the design (including concept art of some wacky pyramid and spherical hovering thrones, instead of a lower torso and legs). I'm still cursing the day I threw out all those magazines... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)