Talk:Christine Chapel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 15:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this article for review. I will have my comments up by the end of the week at the latest. Aoba47 (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Each image needs an alt and to be presented "upright"

I've added that to two out of the three - the infobox doesn't allow for an alt to be added to the image. Miyagawa (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. I should have specified that the comments does not apply to the image in the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change "each of the three season" to "all three seasons"

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change "along with" to "as well as" for a better transition

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The final two sentences of the first paragraph need to be reworked for clarity and structure. While you will be expanding on this in the body of the article, but make sure the meaning is clear in the lead. What are referring to with "her relationship with the series creator Gene Roddenberry?" Why was she not in the main cast? Be brief, but concise and clear.

I've modified it while trying to keep it concise. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change "seeking a role in that episode." to "to better fit a role for the episode."

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change the third sentence of the lead to "Roddenberry believed the change in hair color would trick NBC executives into believing Barrett was a different actress" to be more concise and less awkward/wordy.

I've overhauled that. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change the sentence after that to "Executives immediately recognized the actress, but Roddenberry planned to make the character recur throughout The Original Series." to make it more concise and clear.

I've shortened it considerably. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify the he in "he was revealed to be an android as being "Roger Korby" for clarity.

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify meaning of "forced to kiss him". Who was forcing her to kiss Spock?

Clarified. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure all the episode references in the lead are necessary. I think it is best to reserve the exact episode reference so the "Appearances" section and give a more general background of her storylines/appearances for the lead.
Change first sentence of the third paragraph to “Executive producer Robert H. Justman was initially critical of Barrett’s performance as Chapel, but recanted this opinion after her appearance as Lwaxana Troi in the Star Trek: The Next Generation.” Keep the links obviously.

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change “stereotyped role” to “stereotype”

I did this earlier - just forgot to tag. Miyagawa (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change “the promotion” to “the character’s promotion”

I did this earlier - just forgot to tag. Miyagawa (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the episode references are only appropriate for the sentences on criticism and not for the above paragraphs for the reasons I previously stated.

I've trimmed out those references to make it a great deal more general. As such I haven't made a couple of those modifications above as they're no longer in the text. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put a comma after Star Trek in the last sentence.

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concept and development

For the image use "Majel Barrett" for consistency throughout the article.

I've modified the image caption as it didn't really say much, as well as making the name consistent. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change “working on a variety of” to “developing a variety of” to avoid the repetition of the phrase “working on”

Done, that's better. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence (“One actress he saw was Majel Leigh Hudec, later to use the name Majel Barrett?”) reads very awkwardly and the meaning is not clear. Where did he see Barrett? An audition?

I've added a clarification. This was actually something that was unknown to Trek fans until recently when that book was published - previously it was thought that they met while filming The Lieutenant. But the Cushman book had access to the Roddenberry archives, so it's become the go-to source. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome find! Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the following sentence (“Later when he created the drama series The Lieutenant, he cast in the episode "In the Highest Tradition"), I am assuming you mean to say “cast her in the episode”.

Yep, funnily enough I just noticed that when making one of the previous edits. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the third sentence, are you implying that they had an affair? If so, then be clearer in the sentence.

I've changed "relationship" to "romantic relationship". He was also having an affair with Nichelle Nichols at the time too. He even wanted to be in a open relationship with both of them, while being married to a third woman. He was quite the adulterer (see Personal life of Gene Roddenberry which I'll take to GA as soon as I lay my hands on a further source which covers yet another affair, this time with Susan Sackett, his personal assistant). Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change the sentence about Number One to the following for concision and avoid awkward language: “During the development of the first pilot for Star Trek: The Original Series (“The Cage”), Roddenberry wrote the part of Number One (the ship’s second in command) specifically for Barrett. There was…” Keep the links and move the references accordingly.

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the final sentence of the first paragraph, do you know any of the other actresses that were seen for the part?

The sources don't name any, they pretty much made clear that he was going through the motions in an attempt to make it seem like he wasn't just giving his girlfriend a significant main cast role (which he was). Considering that the Cushman source does mention alternatives for some of the other characters, I don't think that the other actresses even warranted mentions in a memo at the time. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make sense. Just wanted to make sure on this part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure the first sentence of the second paragraph as it reads awkwardly and needs better transition. May be better to cut into two sentences.

I split it into two initially and then trimmed the second one to an extent that it didn't look right - so I merged it back into a single sentence again. But it should be less awkward now at least. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence is very unclear. What did they agree on?

I've clarified that it was her casting they agreed on. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure the following sentences (“She went to Roddenberry's office to surprise him, but he didn't recognize her and walked right past. It was only when he came back out to drop some papers off with his secretary and did a double-take that he realised who she was”) as they sound too informal. Great information, but make it more formal.

Done - again, I was working ahead of the query as upon re-reading it I thought it was too informal as well! Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with British vs. American English. Stick with one or the other (you use recognize and realise in the same article for instance)

Sadly I'm a British English writer who tries to write in American English but whose finger often slips from the "z" key to the "s". I've fixed this instance. I still wait avidly for the day when someone brings out a conversion bot for this. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not too much of an issue with this article, just wanted to bring this to your attention as it is a very easy thing to do. I am surprised there is not a conversation bot for this already as I can see a lot of use for it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why the character was named Christine Ducheaux to begin with?

No information given in the sources. But there was an actor in "The Naked Time" by the name of Christian Ducheau. It seems an awful co-incidence. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I was more so making sure that all the information was being present on this area. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not capitalize nurse, as it is not a part of a character’s name.

Rectified. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful in the sentence about Roddenberry rewriting scripts as it sounds like a fan’s point of view, especially the phrase “Black’s script was no exception”. Make it more objective.

I've dropped that bit as it was going off-topic and I've clarified that it was Roddenberry that added the character to the scripts. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify “the new character” as Chapel. There’s no reason to leave it ambiguous.

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the person saying that Chapel “got lost along the way”? Clarify the speaker.

That was just an out and out mistake - it was Barrett. I even capitalised "Said". That was bad. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the sentence (“Returning again in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, it was Nimoy's decision, as director, to bring back the character for which she was grateful.”), just say “Nimoy brought back the character for Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, and Barrett was grateful for his decision. Your version is awkwardly phrased.

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove “the character did not appear but” and just say with “Chapel was one of the suggested possibilities for Alice Eve to play in the sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness.”

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this help but this video of Barrett's interview with Entertainment Tonight discusses a little bit more about her original casting as Number One and a little more about the character (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaRpOLy9j4A). Just something to help.

Yeah, she said the official line on Number One there. The truth is a little murkier as that particular story didn't crop up until the 1970s convention circuit. Cushman found no evidence at all in the Roddenberry archives, and there's been fan speculation that the studio told Roddenberry to re-cast the part but he simply removed it. They wanted Spock gone too, but they liked the actor and so he was able to talk them around. It was in source listed that said that NBC just didn't like her acting, and that was written by one of the executive producers. Miyagawa (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure (I am trying to do some research on Chapel while reviewing the article to do a better job and just because your article piqued my interest in the subject). Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances

Restructure the first sentence as it reads awkwardly and is attempting to convey a lot of ideas. It may be stronger to separate it into two sentences.

Just taken another look at this. Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing “working to” to “working under”

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

”Admitted” should be in present tense as you are describing an action that takes place in an episode. The prior sentences can stay in past tense as you are discussing the history of the character before the episodes.

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Define Exo III. What is it? A reader unfamiliar to Star Trek or this particular version of it would not understand what you are referring to.

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove “sinister plot” as that is far too sensationalized and simply say “discover Korby has been exploiting sophisticated android manufacturing technology”

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify the meaning behind “ a sophisticated android manufacturing technology, the legacy of a long-dead civilization.” as I have no idea what you are talking about here. This may require separating this rather long sentence into two.
Make sure the focus stays on Chapel. Korby is obviously important, but while I was reading through the second paragraph, I felt like I was reading an article about Korby instead.

I've heavily trimmed this out and focused on Chapel. Miyagawa (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change “Chapel’s is horrified” to “Chapel’s horrified” and also the sentence needs to revised as they are grammatical errors and it needs to be much more clear.

This got massively trimmed out as part of the previous point. Miyagawa (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the “but” in front of “most notably”

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure the following sentence as it reads awkwardly (“ This compels Chapel to admit that, despite her long-standing desire to be close with the Vulcan, she was humiliated by those actions.”)

I got too wordy again. I've simplified it significantly. Miyagawa (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revise the following sentence as it reads awkwardly (“Spock refuses the soup, and throws it at the wall because she is not willing to leave, but later acknowledges her thoughtfulness.”)

I've pulled out the middle part of the sentence which lets it flow better now. Miyagawa (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can more be said about Spock’s consciousness being transferred into Chapel’s body? Did we learn more about the character or her relationship to Spock? It seems like more can be said here.

I've removed that - having checked the episode in question, it seems that it was an error in the source as Chapel oversaw someone else's conciousness being transferred into Spock. But she was merely involved as most of the medical staff were. Miyagawa (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the films by their full title; they do not need to be linked as you have already done so in the lead.

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just say the 2008 film Star Trek for a more precise way of phrasing the release.

Done. That was just me trying to get too clever with some over wordiness. Just like now. ;) Miyagawa (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I would combine the first two sentences as the first sentence reads strangely and rather abruptly by itself.

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify the meaning of this sentence (“He said that when she appeared in "The Naked Time", she spent her time longing after Spock, and did the same thing in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" for Dr. Korby.”) Is he saying this in a negative way? Make the meanings of each sentence clear, as the sentence seems unnecessary as it is pretty much repeated in a better way with the quote about the close-ups of her quivering lip.

I think the following quote covered it, so I've removed that sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of “steps” did Justman do to make Chapel aware of his change in opinion? This part seems unnecessarily vague.

I simply changed it from the vague "took steps" to "told her". I think specifically he wrote her a letter. Miyagawa (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change “who worked on the staff” to “who worked with the staff”

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the sentence about Gerrold saying Chapel was not explored contradicts the sentence saying she was one of the few characters whose motivations were not explored. I would revise this slightly to make the meanings clearer.

I revised the first sentence to stop it from contradicting itself. Miyagawa (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Identify who is saying the following (“There was seen as a need to demonstrate the "aloofness" of the Vulcan character, this resulted in a character whose love of him needed to be rebuffed, and so Chapel gained her purpose.”)

Added that it was Gerrold, and gave it a slight restructuring. Miyagawa (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure the following sentence as it reads awkwardly. (“His opinion was that this caused Chapel to be the least liked of all of the characters in The Original Series as "Female fans saw her as a threat to their own fantasies and male fans saw her as a threat to Spock's Vulcan stoicism."). The quote is very good so make sure to better incorporate it in a fully realized sentence.

Re-worded. I've used fandom instead of fans simply to avoid repeating fans in the following sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure it is clear who is speaking in the sentence starting with “But added that those fans”. Also the sentence reads somewhat strangely. Yes, the reactions of the fans are important, but “they couldn't see the beauty in the actress due to the character's relationship” reads more like a fan of the actress rather than an objective take.

Wow, yes, that's proper cheesy. I've taken that out and replaced it with something more sensible. Miyagawa (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything that could explain why the character became more popular by the time of the 2009 film? I am sure it has to be more than just with the actor’s looks.

Nothing in the sources, but I would have thought it was due in part to Barrett's legacy as "the first lady of Star Trek" by that point. Her subsequent Troi character was very popular with the fans, who I think were keen for all the characters to return in the new films. Miyagawa (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay as it is then. It may be helpful to add something here in the future if you can find a credible source talking about Barrett's legacy as "the first lady of Star Trek" but for now, it is good.

Change “within the book” to “in the book” and specify who the author is for the book by saying “X’s Gene…”

Made the "in the book" edit, but the book itself is a collection of different essays on the series by a number of authors. There is an overall editor, shall I add them instead? Miyagawa (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence with Jan Johnson-Smith reads awkwardly. I would move the “by” part to right after “described” to read (Chapel was described by Jan Johnson-Smith in American Science Fiction TV as “a woman condemned to forever lust after the elusive Vulcan” and one of several female characters in the series who were "depicted as recognisable stereotypes")

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would put a topic sentence on the second paragraph to tie all the criticism together about her representation of women and relationship with Spock as being criticized and questioned.

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be beneficial to separate all the praise for the character in its own paragraph (identified by a topic sentence) to make it clear to the reader (Eugene Myers’ positive take on the character and it also seems that Torie Atkinson responds positively to the character). This will help the organization of the “Critical reception section.” However, this is just a suggestion and not required.

I've moved a few things around to try to get some organisation going in this section. Miyagawa (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t the last sentence be put in the “Appearances” section as it deals more with her storyline than the reception of the character?

I've moved it up to Appearances and re-wrote it to fit the new location. Miyagawa (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

All the links and the research are great, I would advise you to archive any applicable links to prevent dead/broken sources but this is not required for now.

I just realised I'd missed one - I'd created the archive on archive.org when I wrote the article but hadn't added the relevant url. That's now done. Miyagawa (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Miyagawa: I have posted my comments just for the lead and development sections right now as I am still working through the rest of the article. You have done a lot of great work, but I think the article would improve with my suggestions. Let me know if you have any questions and I will have the rest of my comments posted by the end of the day. I just wanted to show you that I am working on this and give you something to work on until all the comments are posted. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa: I have posted my comments, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa: Great job with the revisions so far. After addressing my last few comments, this will be a very quick pass. I appreciate and respect all the work you put into the Star Trek pages. Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I think I've answered everything now. Thanks for reviewing, I really appreciate it. This was certainly one of the more interesting articles I've worked up recently - although I have Spock on my hitlist for the next few months... but I have a feeling that'll be one of those articles where everything is split into subsections and so I might do a sub-article at a time. Miyagawa (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa: You have done a wonderful job with this article. Good luck with your work on the Spock page and I look forward to seeing your progress in the future. I am passing this page as a GA. Pass. Aoba47 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: