Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Faces (Star Trek: Voyager)/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2017 [1].

Faces (Star Trek: Voyager)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I am taking a short break from putting Russell family-related articles through the FAC process to put forth something different. This article is about an episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager. It is the 14th episode of the first season and was first broadcast by UPN on May 8, 1995. In this episode, a Vidiian scientist Sulan (Brian Markinson) separates B'Elanna Torres (Roxann Dawson) into a full-blooded Klingon and a full-blooded human in order to find a cure for a disease. The Voyager crew rescues Torres and restores her, while she attempts to reconcile with her identity as a half-human half-Klingon. It was developed as a character study to further explore Torres' internal struggle with her identity. Dawson was originally resistant to the episode, but later identified it as one of her favorite performances. It has also been the subject of racial criticism and study. The episode's final sequence garnered negative reviews from critics and fans for the lack of empathy shown to Torres by the rest of Voyager's crew.

I very much enjoyed working on this article, as it was one of my favorite episodes in the pre-season 4/pre-Seven of Nine parts of the series. I looked to other FAs on television episode, and incorporated my own experiences with my successful FAC for "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" while writing and revising this article. I was also partially inspired by the successful FAC for "Yesterday's Enterprise" to pursue this nomination. I believe that it satisfies all of the FA criteria. I look forward to hearing your feedback and growing as a writer and a Wikipedia contributor. Thank you in advance!

Comments from Midnightblueowl

[edit]

Clearly some great work has gone on here, so well done. Just a few points:

  • Thank you for your help so far! I apologize if I am interrupting in the middle of a review, but I just wanted to let you know that I have addressed your comments. I look forward to hearing further from you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nana Visitor, who plays Kira Nerys in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" - "played", rather than "plays", given that we are discussing events in the 1990s. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her to understand her character well enough to play her" - again, a few too many instances of "her" in quick succession. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Faces" was first broadcast on May 8, 1995, on UPN at 9 pm Eastern Standard Time." Probably worth specifying that this was in the United States. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode was first released for home media use on VHS in the United Kingdom in 1995 as part of a two-episode collection with "Cathexis".[29] The episode was first released on DVD as part of the first season release on February 24, 2004, in the United States.[30] This was followed by a release in the United Kingdom in 1996,[31] which was subsequently re-released in the following year.[32] " Something is wrong with the chronology and dates here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode was positively received by the cast and crew, for its representation of Torres' internal conflict over her half-human half-Klingon identity. " - the comma here does not work. Instead I would put one after "half-human". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to deal with her internal struggles with identity" - repetition of "with"; perhaps "internal identity struggles". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fantastic work, Aoba. I'd like to see the above issues dealt with but there is noting here that I feel prevents this article from being appointed as an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from adamstom97

[edit]

A few notes:

  • The Nielsen rating line in the lead has an extra '"' in it.
  • The phrase "In the episode's first draft aliens, using" reads oddly to me. I feel something more like "In the episode's first draft, aliens used" would be better.
  • The article doesn't have a full listing of the series regular cast anywhere, which I suppose is just being left to the main series/season articles. The only reason I mention it is that as someone who is unfamiliar with the show, the way some of the other cast members and their characters are discussed throughout the article was a bit confusing.
  • Thank you for your comment. I completely understand what you mean, and I would be more than happy to hear suggestions on how to better convey the information regarding the regular cast. I could add in a separate section following the "Plot" section about the cast. I was primarily basing this article around other FAs on Star Trek episodes, such as "Yesterday's Enterprise", "Space Seed", and "The Man Trap". Aoba47 (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Adamstom.97: Thank you for your response. After giving the idea further thought, I am left a little uncertain about the value of listing the main cast in this particular case. I think it is beneficial for The Dirty Half Dozen and I really like the way that you have done it there. However, this episode is focused in on a select amount of characters from the show, with specific attention paid to B'Elanna Torres. Several major characters such as Kathryn Janeway and Neelix have relatively minor roles. My only concern would be listing a lot of cast members and characters' names in the lead and the "Casting and filming" section, and only a handful of them really having a major impact in the actual episode (since for all intensive purposes, it was conceived as more a character study). I hope this makes sense, and I hope that I do not come across as rude as I do greatly appreciate your feedback and suggestion. I will have to think about it further if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I completely understand. Perhaps you would consider just stating the actor and character together when introducing them in the prose throughout the article similarly to how you do so in the plot section? For instance, you have "Commander Chakotay (Robert Beltran)" in the plot section, and then the next mention of him is not until the casting and filming section where I had basically forgotten this since the article is mostly focused on Dawson and Torres. Would it be beneficial to start that sentence in the casting and filming section with "Robert Beltran, portraying series regular Commander Chakotay, said he felt..." and so on, just to give the readers a bit of help once they are into reading all the production info? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other then that, this is a great article and a good read. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reidgreg

[edit]

I did some copyedit on this article a few months ago, if that's a COI. In any case, here is some optional advice:

  • Infobox – Episode no.: The link on the numeral 1 could be confusing. Perhaps to better reflect the link's target, it could be piped over Season 1.
  • I am sorry, but I am having a brain fart moment. Could explain this part to me? I am sure it is good advice, and I would be more than happy to apply it to the article, but I just would like some clarification if that is okay. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. My issue was that Season 1 is not ideal linking. But the "Season" part is generated by the infobox, so a fix wouldn't be as simple as I had assumed. A workaround could cause problems, so I'm afraid I don't have any good advice on this one.
    No worries; I simply removed the link to avoid any unnecessary confusion for the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox – guest appearances: hyphens shouldn't be used as separators (hyphens bring things together, dashes separate them). These should be replaced with en dashes (wiki: –) or, alternatively, colons or commas. If the en dash threatens an undesired line wrap, you could change the bulleted list to an {{unbulleted list}}.
  • Development: Torres into human and Klingon parts as part of an experiment, to improve the prose from the repetitive "part" while keeping to plain English, I'd suggest replacing "parts" with "individuals" or "halves".
  • Redundancies/conciseness: there's an "along with" which could be just "with", "spent some time considering" could be "considered", "was also available" could be "was available", "Harrisson also noted" could be "Harrisson noted".
  • Clarity: In Sulan examines the Klingon Torres as she experiences extreme agony from the Phage does as mean he examines her because she is experiencing agony, or that he examines her while she is experiencing agony? It's a subtle difference, but at the FA level is probably worth rephrasing – although there are other plot issues to be addressed first (see below).
  • Two other cases of as with the because/while ambiguity: Torres was more manipulative than Beauty from the fairy tale, as she uses her sexuality and the Klingon should receive more prominent attention of the two, especially as Torres struggles with that side of her identity throughout the series.
  • Production: Between Writing and Casting and filming, there are about six sentences that don't especially fit and might be moved to a new section, Production design. (This would be for the sentence about the jungle location changed to caves, tying in with budgetary concerns that had the episode produced near the end of the season, the set construction, make-up, and the Emmy nomination for make-up.)

There have been updates to MOS:TV in the last couple months, and these affect parts of the article. I would consider this optional, but here is my advice if you want the article to be MOS-compliant:

  • The Plot section is 545 words, which is over the new MOS:TVPLOT recommendation of 400 words. I can see shaving off 50 words fairly easily, but 150 would mean some serious cuts. Let me know if you want specific advice on cuts.
  • Thank you for the comment. I would greatly appreciate some more specific advice on what to cut as I am having difficulty. I have removed and reworded some things, but I am having difficulty with finding what to remove without taking away the context for a reader. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cut it down to 400 words. I would still be more than happy to hear your suggestions on this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You did a good job reducing the plot! Some things I might change:
    • The second sentence is a little long and could be broken, with the part after the parenthesis integrated into the third sentence as: He infects Klingon Torres with the Phage, a deadly disease afflicting his species, to study her genetics since Klingons have a natural immunity.
    • A little further down, it might read better if you broke from the chronology slightly and tied together the two parts about her Klingon heritage, then the two parts about Sulan's attraction: Klingon Torres expresses pride in her Klingon identity, though she remembers hiding her Klingon heritage as a child. Recognizing Sulan's attraction to her, she tries to seduce the scientist and escape, but his desire to find a cure overcomes his lust.
    I believe those changes would knock it down to 380 words, which gives you a little room to add something back in. Nothing seems to be missing, though. (I suppose, just for fun, you could put in the stardate.)
    Thank you for the suggestions. I have revised the plot suggestions with your ideas. I am very happy with how the section turned out, and I prefer it now that it is more concise. I think I will leave out the stardate to avoid putting some so in-universe as one of the first things in the body of the article to avoid confusing an unfamiliar reader. I agree that everything appears to be covered so I am happy with how it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also recommended in TVPLOT to avoid having actor's names in the plot section. So, more reason for a short cast section (and that will also remove a quick 17 words from the plot section). Check MOS:TVCAST for recommendations if you want to go forward with that.
  • Removed actor's names from the plot section. I am still not 100% convinced on the value of a cast section, especially when it has not been done for featured articles on television episodes. I think that the article does not necessarily require one, but I would be more than open to hear your suggestions on this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing wrong with the way you've done it in prose as the actors/characters are mentioned. Cast lists tend to be used at main articles because they're easier to update, but there is a general preference for prose over lists and you've done a good job.
    Thank you for the clarification. And that makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like how the article has been improved over the past few months, particularly the Racial analysis section. Good work! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Reidgreg: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed all of them. I had a brief question about the infobox, and I would greatly appreciate any help with cutting down the summary as I am having some difficulties with figuring out what to cut. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your help; I definitely need to familiarize myself better with MoS so I will read through it more thoroughly in the near future. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • The first image is properly sourced and licensed. The Comic Con logo is de minimis, so there's no copyright issues.
  • The second image has an appropriate fair use rationale.
  • The captions for the images are fine.
  • For the alt of the first image, he is looking straight forward.
  • "while the one on the right has straighter hair and a uniform with a yellow strip." You mean left?

-- 1989 14:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Paparazzzi

[edit]
  • On "Plot" section: "overcomes his lust The human version..." I think there must be a full stop after "lust"
  • On "Casting and filming" section: The prosthetics and make-up for the Vidiians was handled.... Shouldn't it be "were"?
Wow, I think you did an excellent job with this article. Since my comments are only two, and are really easy to address, I support this nomination. Congrats, Paparazzzi (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

[edit]
  • "He separates her into a full-blooded Klingon and a full-blooded" - Klingon is already linked in the lead section
  • In the plot section, I notice that only the Ensign rank is linked but the others are not. I have no problem with this and am probably just nitpicking here
  • "Dawson clarified that "The Human" did not have strength or courage while the Klingon" - does "The Human" need to be in quotes here? I just thought this because it isn't quoted later on in the paragraph
  • "The episode was also available on numerous streaming video on demand services, such as Amazon Video iTunes, and Hulu." - the episode, along with the series, is also on Netflix. Is it worth mentioning that?

I'm going to support outright as I'm certain this meets the "well written" aspect of the FA criteria. I know that I've come to the FAC quite late and consequently haven't found any glaring issues to raise since the article already has been polished. Excellent work! JAGUAR  20:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krish!

[edit]

Comments from Vedant

[edit]

Sorry for joining in late, I'll put up comments shortly. NumerounovedantTalk 13:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • No worries; this FAC has only been up for a couple of days (five days at the time that I am posting this actually), and I am very happy to have received so much feedback so quickly (so technically you are not late at all lol). I look forward to hearing your feedback. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick comment: I find it odd that the article goes on explaining the Nielsen ratings in the Broadcast and release section. I think it's totally irrelevant, and the wiki-link to the ratings' page suffices for the people unfamiliar with the ratings system. Do you have a specific reason for adding this bit? NumerounovedantTalk 19:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I just wanted to add that bit to make the meaning of 6.1/10 percent immediately clear to the reader without having to click to a separate page in order to decipher its meaning. I figured the percentage may not be as clear as a straight forward number (i.e. "The episode was viewed by a total of X million people" or "with Nielsen ratings of X") so I just wanted to make it as user/reader-friendly as possible. I can remove that part and revise the sentence if you believe that it is necessary, as I completely understand your point. Aoba47 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have remove the extraneous information and revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • I think the first sentence of the second paragraph fits better at the end of the first.
  • "restore" sounds really odd in context of a person, I understand what it implies buy is there really not a better word?
  • Remember that this is science-fiction narrative so it is not realistic. I personally do not take issue with the word "restore" considering this context. The show uses the word "reintegrate", but that also can sound odd in reference to a person. I would be open to hearing your suggestions, but again remember that narrative in general is pretty odd in the context of a person to begin with (splitting someone into two copies of themselves). Aoba47 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The characters' makeup was conceived by Michael Westmore to emphasize the difference between them" - Not sure what this means. It somehow makes it sound like Westmore had something to do with the makeup looking a certain way. If that is the case it could be rephrase otherwise they could work better as two separate sentences.
  • I believe"ratings share" is more appropriate for Nielsen score (rather than "percent")
Production
  • There is an awfully long quote in the section immediately after the "Phage" entry. See if you maybe trim/paraphrase parts of it.
  • I believe that the Emmy nomination for prosthetic make-up belongs in the reception section, but since it has more context here I'll it you to decide.
  • I feel better with putting closer the information on the prosthetic make-up to provide a fuller context rather than throwing it down in the "Critical reception" subsection, where it really doesn't flow or fit with any of the discussions going on there (which primarily focus on Torres as a character and Dawson's performance). Aoba47 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with the use of "human"/"Human" when referring to Torres.

More to follow. NumerounovedantTalk 06:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The section looks good to me. Just a couple of suggestions:

  • The opening sentence of the Critical Reception part can be better. Simply saying that the reviews were largely positive and following it with a review works fine, but the mention of the aspects that were praised (and maybe an extra review focusing on some more aspects) would elevate the part.
  • "Allen Kwan also cited the episode's final scene as a negative commentary on race in his article "Seeking New Civilizations: Race Normativity in the Star Trek Franchise". Kwan wrote that Torres'" - In such cases, use a pronoun instead of repeating the name.
  • ""Faces" and its focus on the character of B'Elanna Torres have been the subject of analysis on race." - I think that it would be more appropriate if you simply said that "The focus on the character of B'Elanna in the episode...". The current version suggests that the episode drew attention for more than racial storylines as well.
  • Revised. I used "the character of Torres" instead as I refer to the characters through their last names so I want to make sure that I am consistent throughout with this in mind. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rest looks fine. NumerounovedantTalk 20:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have my Support. Great work, as always. NumerounovedantTalk 20:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Tintor2

[edit]

All sources seem to be reliable whereas the urls are archive. The only thing that makes me wonder is how confusing Den of Geek takes to Dennis Publishing. Nevertheless, the article passes the source review.Tintor2 (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the source review! It appears that Den of Geek is redirected to Dennis Publishing, and I can completely understand your confusion about this as it is a little jarring to click something and lead to an article with a different name. It seems that Dennis Publishing publishes Den of Geek along with several other items. I have revised the reference slightly to better reflect that. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I believe that this FAC has received enough feedback/comments to warrant promotion; it also received an image review and a source review. I honestly did not expect this to go so quickly. Thank you to everyone that commented on this! Aoba47 (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we are almost there. I'd just like a little more of a look at the prose as I think it could be tightened slightly. If I can't find someone to have a look, I'll recuse and do so myself. In any case, there's no great rush as this isn't even two weeks old yet. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vanguard10

[edit]

I enjoyed reading the article. I do not like to criticize others, especially when so much work has been put into this. However, consider the following points.

  • The plot section is completely without attribution. I do know that it is acceptable for any reader to watch a film or watch a TV show and then write a plot section in Wikipedia. However, the standard for a FA are very high. If Wikipedia lowers the standard and permits no citations because they are very hard or impossible to find, should such lowering of standards be allowed for FA's? I cannot answer this except to say that reviewers should think very hard before allowing an article to become a FA when a critical section has no citations. Perhaps somewhere out there is an episode review, like a movie review? If so, that could be the citation.
  • To the best of my knowledge, plot sections do not require citations as the episode itself is the citation. If a citation is absolutely necessary (and again I do not believe it is so according to Wikipedia policy), then I would cite the episode directly as an episode review would not be appropriate in this case. I am not entirely certain where the "lowering the standards" part is coming from as this is done for a majority of the FAs on television episodes. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a TV episode is, in my opinion, extremely difficult to write to meet FA standards. As mentioned, the plot is extremely subject to interpretation. It would be far easier if one reviewed the written script and knew what was in Act I, Scene I; Act I, Scene II; Act II, Act III etc. To just have a freehand version without citations or just adding a citation as the TV episode is really against what Wikipedia is all about. One administrator wrote regarding another Wikipedia article "We'll need a direct source, not what you saw on TV, and it should be reported by more than just one news outlet." This comment was not about any article up for FA consideration but just a regular article. I fully realize that it can be very frustrating to the editor trying to bring an article to FA status. I don't know the answer. I will leave it up to the FA reviewers. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We will just have to agree to disagree on this on this one. Citing the episode is enough support as if someone really wanted to check the information for accuracy, then he or she can watch the episode cited. Respectfully, I am not seeing the issue here regarding this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the information given has only one source and it is an opinion. For example, "Faces" was first broadcast on May 8, 1995..." has only one source but more probably exists and this is factual, so only one citation is fine. Compare that with "The episode was positively received by the cast and crew for its representation of Torres' internal conflict over her half-human, half-Klingon identity". That sounds like an op-ed and lacks more than one citation if even one citation. Political articles in Wikipedia are subject to a lot of fighting because opinions are gleaned from one source and then only one opinion is presented.
  • This was more of a topic sentence that reflected what was being discussed in the paragraph. I always use this resource when constructing "Reception" sections for fictional characters and television episodes, which suggests that "For each paragraph come up with an overall statement of what the paragraph will tell the reader, and use this to create a thematic opening sentence." I would just encourage you to remember the context and content of this article. This is not an article on politics, but an article on television, and the expectations and rules on style is different from political articles most likely. Hopefully, this makes my point clearer. Thank you again for the comment, as I do greatly appreciate you for taking the time to provide comments on this. It is always good to get more eyes on an FAC to get different viewpoints so I hope that I do not sound rude as I just want to offer my viewpoint and open a space for discussion with you as I do value your viewpoint as well. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sentences lack citations. I would recommend going through with a fine tooth comb and see that if a sentence does not have a citation, there is a reasonable explanation for why it's not needed or that the facts are not that important. Again, that is a high bar but FA's are supposed to be Wikipedia's finest work.
  • Everything in the article does have citation. I do not put citations repeatedly (i.e. if two or more sentences in a row are from the same source, then I use use the citation in the last sentence to avoid unnecessary repetition) so in fact everything does have a citation. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there sufficient free-use images?
  • I believe there are enough images in this article. If you have any specific suggestions, then please let me know. I believe any additional images would be distracting from the actual content of the article. My reasoning is that I do not see any point in which more images would better illustrate any part of the article better to the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps there should be some information about actual production of this episode? There is mention of " It was originally going to be set in a jungle, but the location was changed to caves after director Winrich Kolbe calculated that the former idea would exceed the episode's budget.[8" but it might be interesting to expand this and even mention what the budget was.
  • To the best of my knowledge, there is not more information about this particular part of the episode and I do not have any information on the exact amount for the budget for this specific episode. I respectfully disagree with the claim that this article does not have enough information on the production of the episode when the article includes information on the writing, filming, and even some bits on prosthetic work so I do not fully understand your comment for this context. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sub-section "Separation of B'Elanna Torres" doesn't fit into Production. It is more of an analysis of the plot.
  • I respectfully disagree completely on this. The first paragraph focuses on Dawson's approach to the character and performance, the second paragraph focuses on how the scripts were written and given to Dawson and Biller and Dawson's perspective on the storyline, the third paragraph is about the use of a photo double, and the fourth paragraph is about the filming. I do not see how this relates to anything, but the production of the episode. Also, I would caution you to view this as "an analysis of the plot" when all of the information being presented is from people directly involved in the show, and not third-party critics or commentators. This section is somewhat similar to "The creature" subsection in the FA for "The Man Trap" in which it focuses on the production, filming, and cast and crew comments on a specific part of the episode. Hope this clears things up. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I know that writing an article to FA standards is very time consuming and difficult. I am not stating that this article should fail FA candidacy. I only say that there are some questions in my mind, some of which I present above. I hope it is acceptable to present these ideas in the hopes that the editors writing the article will take another look to see if it can be improved. Good luck in your quest. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vanguard10: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed them above. I respectfully disagree wth a majority of the points raised, but I greatly appreciate your feedback and look forward to hearing from you. Just for clarity, I am the primary and only editor that expanded the article and brought it to this point. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck! As mentioned before, I don't want to discourage anyone from getting an article promoted to FA status. It is a huge amount of work. Even if someone is not successful, that editor deserves a barnstar for all that article improvement made.
A final comment, consider a list of characters, actors who played those characters, director, and some of the production staff. This is an integral part of a TV episode, not just plot and some production information and analysis. qaStaHvIS yIn 'ej chep. (Klingon for "Live Long and Prosper") Vanguard10 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments! I greatly appreciate that you took the time and energy to provide such extensive feedback, and stayed civil and positive while we discussed our differences in our opinions. You actually have inspired me a lot on how to better handles discussions in which editors may not see eye to eye on certain issues. If you look previously in this discussion (I am very fortunate to have received such amazing response, including yours), specifically the comments from adamstom97, then it can be seen that this idea for a character and cast list has been discussed and I think a fair compromise has been reached. This is still an interesting discussion to have though, and it may be helpful/beneficial to raise this talk page for the Manual of Style for television articles to gauge the opinion on using character/cast lists in television episode articles as I can see the value of it and it is always good to re-examine style guidelines to make sure that it helps all of the readers. Again, I hope I did not come across as rude for disagreeing with you as I really do appreciate your feedback and I have enjoyed our conversation. I look forward to working with you in the future, and seeing your future work as well. wo’ batlhvaD (For the honor of the Empire!) [Random side note, but you should check out the fact that they are going to be teaching the Klingon language on Duolingo if you have not already heard of it. It is interesting, and I have a special place in my heart for fictional languages through my linguistics B.A.) Aoba47 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My final comment is to have an objective and critical discussion about FA articles. If the criteria for promotion is to compare the article to Yesterday's Enterprise, which is a FA, then this one passes. If the criteria includes some of the topics discussed, then I leave it to the FA reviewers to make a decision. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gen. Quon

[edit]

A fun article to read. Some points:

  • Should Joy Kilpatrick be listed in the Guest appearance(s) section?
  • Added. I put Roxann Dawson's photo double as her role in the episode, but if you think something else would be better, then feel free to let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a free pic of Roxann Dawson that might work well in this episode, since it is largely about her character.
  • Just to be on the extra-safe side, I'd bulk up the "Purpose of Use" section on the FacesKlingonHumaTores.jpg image page.
  • I think the reference in the plot section is a bit superfluous. Since this is an article about the episode, and you're citing the episode to backup the episode's plot, it all seems unnecessary. But it's not a big issue, and it's up to you. If you do want to include a reference, I'd link to something like an official guide book, or the like. That's what I did for some of my FA episode articles (here's an example).
    Perhaps you can use the plot summary from the Ruditis book? <ref name=episodeplot>[[#ruditis2003|Ruditis (2003)]]: pp. 41–42</ref>
  • TrekNation is a fan site that doesn't really provide any references for its data. I found a reliable source that backs up the claim that the episode was the 77th ranked, and scored a 6.1, here:
<ref>{{cite news|url=http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/0EAF3FFED24C0EB4?p=AWNB|accessdate=May 1, 2017|work=[[Orange County Register]]|publisher=[[Digital First Media]]|date=May 17, 1995|page=F02}} {{subscription required}}</ref>
And for the source to back up the info about "Cathexis", I'd use this:
<ref>{{cite news|url=http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/0EB52D74815B926E?p=AWNB|accessdate=May 1, 2017|work=[[Tampa Bay Times|St. Petersburg Times]]|publisher=[[Times Publishing Company]]|date=May 12, 1995|page=17}}{{subscription required}}</ref>
  • Do you have a citation for "'Faces' was first broadcast on May 8, 1995, on UPN at 9 pm Eastern Standard Time in the United States"?
  • I have added two sources (one for the day and another for the time). I actually got the time wrong so I greatly appreciate that you pointed this out so I could double-check this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point, but I think page citations (e.g. Smith 1900, p. XYZ) should have a period at their end, to match with other citations.
  • There are several instances of dashes in the refs (e.g. 15, 31, the bibliographic entry for Delta Quandrant) that should probably be en dashes (that is, {{en dash}}).
  • Ref 12 (which points to The Star Trek Encyclopedia) doesn't have any page numbers, even though it appears it is a book source. Is this a mistake, or an issue with an e-book (I've been there)?

I hope this helps.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for adding in the sources as they are very helpful. I have addressed almost all of your comments. I will put in a source about the broadcast by the end of today. Thank you again for your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties, I've copyedited that article so pls check I haven't inadvertently altered meaning, and that my wording is still supported by the references. One outstanding thing:

  • "The cast and crew considered the representation of the human and Klingon halves of Torres." -- this sentence just sits there; what exactly did they consider? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: Thank you for the edits as they were very helpful to improving the article as a whole. Thank you for pointing out that particular sentence, as I am not sure how I missed that when reading through the article while revising everything during the FAC process. I think I was trying to make some sort of topic sentence like (The cast and crew paid close attention to the representations of the human Klingon halves of Torres during the production of the episode), but I left it as a sentence fragment for some reason and forgot to complete it. Looking through that particular subsection again, I do not believe the sentence is necessary as it is somewhat repetitive and I do not believe it adds much to the reader's understanding of this particular aspect of the episode's development outside of what is already in the subsection so I have removed the sentence altogether. I look forward to hearing your feedback on this and any other aspects of the article. I greatly appreciate your help with this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: If possible, I would appreciate an update on this. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2017 (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/Faces_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)/archive1&oldid=1136458758"