Talk:Home Soil

Untitled

I think it's uncanny that the Enterprise encounters a giant sentient crystalline being (the crystalline entity) in Season 1, and then discovers a small sentient crystalline being in the same season (in "Home Soil"). If these two beings are not the same race/species, then they must at least be related. I am shocked that the crew didn't at least speculate about this possibility in "Home Soil".

I thought the very same thing.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Home Soil/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 03:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• "Home Soil" is the 18th episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: The Next Generation, originally aired on February 22, 1988 in broadcast syndication within the United States.
  • "Home Soil" is the 18th episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: The Next Generation. The episode originally aired in broadcast syndication on February 22, 1988. (You already said it is American; does that not imply it originally aired in the United States? Do American television shows air in other countries first?) Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Not for Star Trek - although I've seen it happen for Babylon 5, Stargate SG-1 (a lot) and Battlestar Galactica. I've trimmed out the United States as I think it'd be implicit unless otherwise stated. :) I'll roll this out to the other articles I've done too. Miyagawa (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not a big deal. I added "It first aired". Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I also added a comma after the year. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Set in the 24th century, the series follows the adventures of the crew of the Starfleet starship Enterprise-D.
  • I just want to point out that this appears to be one of those unusual "created-for-Wikipedia" terms. Outside of Wikipedia, it is far more common to read about "the adventures of the Starfleet crew on the Federation starship Enterprise-D". I am very curious if the strange phrase "Starfleet starship Enterprise-D" exists outside of Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm happy with that change - I'll get it rolled out to the other TNG articles too. Miyagawa (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• It was one of several episodes of the series to be directed by Corey Allen.
  • More specifically, it was one of five episodes of the series directed by Corey Allen (Encounter at Farpoint, Home Soil, Final Mission, The Game, Journey's End). Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Amended. Miyagawa (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• There were several problems prior to filming, and issues with the script meant that it was only delivered to Allen the day prior to shooting.
  • As the reader, I am left wondering what kind of problems and what kind of issues. I wonder if it might be possible for you to be more specific in some way. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've amended it to be as precise as the main body of the article - however the source didn't go into exactly what those specific problems were. Miyagawa (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• There were several problems prior to filming...Hurley felt that the episode had problems with execution.
  • Stylistically, try not to repeat the same words so close together. You've established that there were "problems" before filming and "problems" with execution. Can you think of another way to say this? Also, it isn't exactly clear what "problems with execution" means. What exactly was this problem? Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've removed the line from the lead, as its covered by the first sentence and doesn't need to be repeated. Miyagawa (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• It was watched by 9 million viewers on first broadcast, the second lowest number of viewers for the first season of The Next Generation.
  • There's no need to say "on first broadcast". Just say, "The episode was watched by 9 million viewers, the second lowest number of viewers for the first season of The Next Generation." One thing to keep in mind is that the low number of viewers is probably attributable to the end of the President's Week holiday when people are still returning from vacation, not to declining viewership. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Edited as suggested - also I didn't know about the President's week bit (being a Brit). Miyagawa (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Critical reception was mixed, with the episode compared to The Original Series episode "The Devil in the Dark".
  • This is somewhat of an odd statement. On the one hand you say the critical reception was mixed. Have you confirmed that this is indeed the case? On the other hand, you say that the episode was compared to the "The Devil in the Dark", generally considered one of the best TOS episodes. As a reader, I have to say I'm a bit confused. Perhaps the presentation of these opposing views could be cleaned up with an example of the "mixed" reception. You provide a positive view but not the negative one, hence the confusion. I "get" that you are trying to say that the story was compared to the TOS ep (that's obvious to anyone who has seen the ep and read the plot) but it comes off as if the critical reception was being compared, even though that's a separate statement. Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've changed it to "Critical reception was mixed, and the plot of the episode was compared to The Original Series episode "The Devil in the Dark"" Miyagawa (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks, but the production section also says "The story bears similarities to the Space: 1999 episode 'All That Glisters'". How do you reconcile these things for the reader? Now, I know you are trying to say critics compared the plot, but you must admit that having these two comparisons without qualification introduces confusion again. Perhaps, "Reception was mixed, with critics comparing the plot to The Original Series episode, 'The Devil in the Dark'." There's a lot you could do here. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Changed the line in the lead to say "Critical reception was mixed, with critics comparing the plot of the episode to The Original Series episode "The Devil in the Dark" due to appearance of inorganic lifeforms." Miyagawa (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
          • OK, but remember to watch out for word repetition ("Critical...critics") and to use a definite article ("the appearance"). Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I've changed critics to reviewers and added that "the". Miyagawa (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
              • Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Plot

• The Enterprise arrives at the terraforming colony on Velara III, as the project is behind schedule. The director, Kurt Mandl (Walter Gotell), insists they are on time but Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) orders an away team to the surface.
  • Troi's role here is important, since she sensed Mandl's nervousness which led Picard to send the away team down immediately. Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • This was completed. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• After they arrive, one of Mandl's team is killed by a malfunction drilling laser.
  • You mean "malfunctioning". Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed as noted and added Troi into that section. Miyagawa (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
      • malfunctioning drilling laser
        • Just say, "malfunctioning laser drill". Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Done. :) Miyagawa (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• It is brought aboard the ship to study, while Picard orders a halt to the rest of the terraforming.
  • "While the crystal is brought aboard the Enterprise to study, Picard orders a halt to the terraforming." Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Dr. Beverly Crusher (Gates McFadden) and Data discover the crystalline form may be a life form.
  • "Dr. Beverly Crusher (Gates McFadden) and Data discover the crystal may be a life form." Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed as suggested - that avoids the repetition of "form". Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• The crystal, attempts to interact with the Enterprise computers, and it is placed into a containment force field.
  • "When the crystal attempts to interact with the Enterprise's computers, it is placed into a containment force field." Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed as suggested. I've been trying to get myself to stop structuring sentences to have those extra commas but I haven't entirely eradicated them yet. Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• The crystal begins to grow rapidly, gains access to the computer's translation program, and begins to communicate with the crew.
  • "As the crystal begins to grow, it gains access to the computer's translation program and attempts to communicate with the crew." Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• It is clear that the crystalline life form sees the humans as an enemy.
  • "The crystalline life form treats the humans as an enemy." Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Nicely succinct. Changed as noted. Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Picard discovers that Mandl and his team had encountered the crystals before, and though they had considered the possibility of it being a life form, Mandl insisted on continuing the terraforming process.
  • "Picard discovers that Mandl and his team previously encountered the crystals; at the time, they had considered the possibility that the crystals were alive, but Mandl insisted on continuing to terraform." Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• The crystal life form only began its attack, rewriting the laser's software, after the drilling process removed a saline water layer from the water table which seemed to act as a conductor, allowing many separate crystals to function as one life form.
  • "The drilling process used by the terraformers was responsible for removing the saline water layer from the water table. This saline layer acted as a conductor, allowing many separate crystals to function as one life form. In response to the drilling, the crystal life form rewrote the laser's software and attacked the terraformers." Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Much better phrasing. Changed as noted. Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Data hypothesises that individually, a single crystal is not intelligent, but when linked to others, their intelligence was formidable.
  • "Data hypothesises that a single crystal by itself is not intelligent, but when linked to others their intelligence is formidable." Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I hadn't noted that individually and single are repetitive in my original structure, but of course they are. Changed to yours. Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• The saline fluid is their circuitry, and to prevent its loss, it drove them to kill the humans who were siphoning off their means of performing their basic tasks which required intelligence and connectivity.
  • "The saline fluid acts as circuitry for the crystals, giving them connectivity and intelligence. The crystals attempted to kill the terraformers to prevent the loss of their fluid layer. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• The crystalline life form begins to access higher-level functions of the computer, and Picard and the crew seek ways to remove it to the surface, as the crystal has blocked attempts to transport it down.
  • "As the crystalline life form accesses higher-level functions of the Enterprise's computer, Picard and the crew try to transport it to the surface, but the crystal blocks all attempts to transport it down." Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Data and Lt. Geordi La Forge (LeVar Burton) recognize that the crystal has photoelectric properties due to the presence of cadmium and disable the lights to the medical lab. The crystal immediately begs for life.
  • "Data and Lt. Geordi La Forge (LeVar Burton) discover the presence of cadmium in the crystal and suspect it has photoelectric properties. They disable the lights in the medical lab and the crystal immediately begs for life." Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed. Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Picard peacefully negotiates with the crystal life form to return it to the surface, where Starfleet will quarantine the planet, leaving the life form to continue to grow in peace.
  • "Picard peacefully negotiates to return the crystal life form to the surface of the planet where Starfleet will institute a quarantine, leaving the life form to live in peace." Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed as noted. The plot is greatly improved, thanks. Miyagawa (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Production

• ...something that Allen described as a "struggle"....Of the story in general, Maurice Hurley described it as...
  • You repeat the word "described" twice. You could try "thought" or "said". Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've changed the Hurley like to "said" since Allen's was a quote. Miyagawa (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• The episode spawned phrase "ugly bags of mostly water" which was the crystal's name for humanoids.
  • The episode spawned the phrase, "ugly bags of mostly water", a description used by the crystalline life form to refer to humanoids. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Reception and media release

• The episode was first aired on February 22, 1988.
  • The episode was first aired on February 22, 1988. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed as noted. Miyagawa (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• However, he didn't like the direction, and that the plot suffered "amnesia" where the Horta from The Original Series episode "The Devil in the Dark".
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "direction". Direction of what? You mean film direction, right? Can you mention what he didn't like about it? Also, this part of the incomplete sentence doesn't make sense: "and that the plot suffered "amnesia" where the Horta from The Original Series episode "The Devil in the Dark". It sounds like you are missing a few words. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I re-jigged that part of the review and added another quote as it was better than I could have paraphrased easily. Miyagawa (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• He gave "Home Soil" an overall score of seven out of ten.
  • "DeCandido gave "Home Soil" an overall score of seven out of ten." Give the reader a prompt as to who you are still referring to here. You originally mentioned him two sentences ago, so it helps to mention his name again. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair point, modified as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Michelle Erica Green, in her review for TrekNation, also felt that the episode was similar to "The Devil in the Dark"...She also felt it was too similar to the previous episode...
  • You repeat the word "felt" twice here. You could try "thought", "maintained", or even "believed". Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed the first "also felt" to "thought". Miyagawa (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• She also felt it was too similar to the previous episode, "When the Bough Breaks" in that "Home Soil" is a science fiction story first and a character driven story second.
  • Are you trying to say that "When the Bough Breaks" and "Home Soil" are less character driven and more plot driven? Can you review the original source for clarity on this? Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've rephrased. What she actually says in her review is - "I wanted to create a place where living things could thrive, and all the while I was destroying one," Mandl says dolefully, sounding just like the aliens who kidnapped Enterprise children in the last episode because their science had wrecked their environment. It's just too much of the same, both in the science fiction and in the storytelling. This series doesn't hit its stride until it starts telling stories about these characters that just happen to have a science fiction angle. Miyagawa (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Zack Handlen, who watched the episode for The A.V. Club thought that the "hard sci-fi" worked well as it was an area that The Original Series never went near
  • "Zack Handlen, who watched the episode for The A.V. Club, thought that the..." Add a comma? As for hard sci-fi, that's an interesting point. If Handlen has more to say about this, that would be a good fit for this article. If you do expand this point, you may also want to add this to the lead, as this is significant. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • He makes some further valid points on this subject, but as it was a rather large quote, I've added it as a quote box instead. Miyagawa (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• He felt that the story was different enough from "The Devil in the Dark" as although the Horta was silicon based, it was at least easily recognisable as an alien creature.
  • You could use a dash here, and watch out, you are repeating the word "felt" here again (and in the subsequent sentence). You could try something like: "He observed that the story was different from "The Devil in the Dark"—although the Horta was silicon-based it was easily recognisable as an alien creature." Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed as noted. I don't tend to use a lot of dashes in my writing so I don't really recognise when it is appropriate to use them. Miyagawa (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• While he felt that the episode was a "winner", he conceded that it was "a bit on the dry side".
  • Repeating "felt" again. "While Handlen thought that the episode was a "winner", he conceded that it was "a bit on the dry side"." Or something like that. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd changed the previous felt to "thought". Miyagawa (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• James Hunt, whilst writing for the website Den of Geek, pointed out that the Enterprise had fought a space-bound crystalline entity several episodes earlier in "Datalore" which was "a lot more impressive than these crystal microbrains? Okay, it wouldn't talk to them, but nor did it die the moment someone switched the frickin' lights off."
  • Slight modifications: "James Hunt, whilst writing for the website Den of Geek, noted that the Enterprise fought a space-bound crystalline entity several episodes earlier in "Datalore", which he considered "a lot more impressive than these crystal microbrains...Okay, it wouldn't talk to them, but nor did it die the moment someone switched the frickin' lights off." Notice how I removed the question mark? That makes it easier to read. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree. Changed as noted. Miyagawa (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Prose needs cleanup for grammar and word repetition

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Link repetition:

   Two links to Robert Sabaroff in the infobox

   Is it likely that we will have articles on Robert Sabaroff, Karl Geurs, Ralph Sanchez, Maurice Hurley, Gerard Prendergast, Edward R. Brown, Mario Roccuzzo.

   Do we need these red links in the lead and in the body?

   I've removed the red links from the lead apart from the Hurley one as he will get a proper article eventually - he was the head writer during season two and invented the Borg - although was also supposedly responsible for Gates McFadden not being around during that season two. There's a lot of information on him out there, it'll just be a case of drawing it all together and then keeping it balanced (a lot of the other writers really didn't like him, so the balance will be the main issue of that article). Miyagawa (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

   Why is television linked in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

   Probably just force of habit, so I've unlinked it. Miyagawa (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

   I added a link to Science fiction on television, which is commonly linked to television series articles. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Why no non-free screencap for this episode? Is it because you don't have access to the DVD?

   The article did have a non-free screencap, but I didn't think it met the fair use criteria as it was being used purely for illustrative purposes. There's a big push at the moment to remove unnecessary screencaps from Star Trek episode articles (there's a huge number up for deletion at the moment, including some that I actually thought were useful on articles which are already GAs. Miyagawa (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

   Yeah, that's what I thought. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

   Pass or Fail:

   Prose requires cleanup. Links should not be repeated unnecessarily. I've made many suggestions on how to cleanup the prose above. You can either take them at face value or think of similar changes that will improve the text. I think the lead section would benefit from two large paragraphs instead of three small ones (although this is not necessary since you are clearly using a three-paragraph style for ST:TNG articles). Handlen's point about the "hard sci-fi" aspect appears significant enough to expand it (if possible) and to mention it in the lead. There are additional inconsistencies with comma usage that I have touched upon briefly. I will put this on hold for a week. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks again for the review. I'll start working through those points this evening. As for the standard wording in the lead, I'm happy to change that and roll it back out across the other episode articles. Miyagawa (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks for the prose pointers, I'll keep an eye out for those word repetitions know that I'm fully aware what I'm doing. Miyagawa (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks for making those changes. I just went through and did a large copyedit. I altered the lead for clarity and resolved two instances of confusion by adding direct quotes from your cited sources. Please go back and make any changes necessary. I have now passed this article as meeting the criteria. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)