Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Favorite Son (Star Trek: Voyager)/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2020 [1].

Favorite Son (Star Trek: Voyager)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above article is about a Star Trek: Voyager episode in which Ensign Harry Kim falls into a trap used by female aliens to attract and kill men as part of their sexual reproduction. In the original premise, Kim was revealed as an alien and would have remained that way for the rest of Voyager. This idea was abandoned after multiple script rewrites. The episode has received primarily negative reviews from critics and fans, and has been the subject of academic analysis.

Thank you again to @No Great Shaker: for doing the GAN review. I hope this nomination encourages other editors to work on articles on television episodes. Thank you in advance for any comments! Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by No Great Shaker

Thank you, Aoba47. Having done the GA review only a few days ago, I've nothing to add for the moment but I will keep a watch on this discussion. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the help (and hopefully I have not opened this FAC too soon). I think that is a great idea as it is always help to see what other editors bring up in their reviews. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the comments raised below by LuK3| and the answers by Aoba47, I think the article is as ready as it can be and I support its promotion to FA. It is a very good article. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support! Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 12:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review! Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by LuK3

First off, great job Aoba47 on a great and informative read. I do have few minor comments:

Guest appearances in the infobox should be formatted as <actor> as <character> according to Template:Infobox television episode#Parameters.

Thank you for pointing this out. I am not sure how I missed it. I have corrected it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" The VHS packaging uses the British spelling— "Favourite Son..." Per MOS:EMDASH, there should not be a space on either side of the dash.

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it relevant to note the reasoning (if any) to use British spelling instead of American spelling on the VHS release?

I have done further research on this, and I unfortunately could not find an explanation for this. It is likely a misprint, but that is purely speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, the last sentence states that critical reception was "mixed" however the section mentions the critical response as "largely negative". Would the cast and crew response warrant a mention in the lead as well?

I agree with you, especially since the cast and crew response has their own subsection. I have added this to the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Critics disliked the Taresians." seems a little abrupt in my opinion. Maybe a transition from the first paragraph to the Taresians response would work well?

I have revised this part, but please let me know if any further work is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me, again great work Aoba47. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LuK3: Thank you for your kind words and your comments. Please let me know if any further work is necessary. I hope you are having a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this article for FA promotion. Again, great work! -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7

One of the weakest episodes of the weakest series in the franchise, featuring the weakest character, and a plot hole big enough to fly a starship through. The article conveys the process that turned a workable idea into a steaming pile of crap. One can only speculate how much better the episode and the whole series would have been with the original concept. It still left some questions in my mind:

Any idea why the episode is called "Favourite Son"?

I could not find an official explanation for the episode title. It is odd to name an episode after a well-known term despite it have no bearing on the plot whatsoever, but the episode as a whole is a mess. It could be something to do with Kim believing he is a member of the alien species and how the women fawn over him, but that is pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Lisa Klink, do we know who the other writers referred to as part of the writing team were?

I could not find exact names. Wang mentioned both studio executives and multiple unnamed writers (likely those who regularly contribute to Vogayer), but does not name any of the people. I have added in a quote from Wang to hopefully clarify this further. Aoba47 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What changes the cast and crew made?

I could not find any further clarification on what Rush meant by his statement. It is likely that the actors tried to alter their performances to better sell the plot and the crew built the sets and filmed it in a way to get more out of the story than the script had provided for them. Aoba47 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was the number of reshoots more than for an average episode?

I could not find a source that explicitly stats that this episode received an unusually large number of reshoots. Most of the focus seems to be on the unusually large number of script rewrites. Wang said that there was a lot of reshoots, but he does not compare it to other Voyager episodes. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider moving the first paragraph of "Casting and filming" into the previous section

Moved. Thank you for the suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TV tropes refers to the trope as "Lady Land" [2]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually surprised there is not a Wikipedia entry on this trope. I had used the quote because I could not find a wikilink for this. Do you think I should add the TV Tropes link to the article? I am not that familiar with adding external links in the prose. If an article on this trope does not already exist, it could be a fun and interesting article to write in the future Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a job for Justine Larbalestier Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to read that! Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thank you for your review. I love Voyager, but it certainly had a lot of issues, and this episode is representative of that. I feel bad for Lisa Klink because it seems like very little if any of her original script survived the rewrites and made it to air. However, it does make for an interesting example of executive meddling. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if anything else can be improved. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Moved to support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Heartfox

A viewership number isn't a Nielsen rating. Yes, it's according to Nielsen but a rating is a percentage; it's not expressed in millions. I'd reword instances of this to "according to Nielsen, ...". This is a similar case for another featured article of yours, Abby (TV series). The 2.6 and 1.6 aren't viewership, they're the rating.

Thank you for catching this. I am not sure how I missed that. I am so used to not having the direct number that I just read right over this part. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think url-access=subscription is required for Newspapers.com as they're clippings? Heartfox (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. I have removed it. I have only recently started to use clippings so the subscription part is a carry over from when I linked directly to the newspaper which required a subscription to read. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed both of them. Please let me know if anything else needs further improvement. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ensign Harry Kim I suppose this should be altered per MOS:SEAOFBLUE if possible?

That is a fair point. I have unlinked ensign to avoid this. I have tried to think of ways to reword the sentences in the lead and plot summary, but my revisions always come across as awkward or clumsy so I think unlinking that one word is a simpler solution. Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

placed it in 88th place maybe just "placed it 88th"

That would be better and more concise. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

is the first instance of ref 30 necessary given it also appears at the end of the very next sentence?

That was an oversight on my part. I have removed the first instance. Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

streaming video on demand sea of blue

Thank you for pointing that out as there was a word missing in between the two (i.e. "and"). Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although Cinefantastique and writer David A. McIntee both panned "Favorite Son",[9][13] a Star Trek Monthly contributor gave it a more positive review of four out of five stars, which the magazine defined as "Trill-powered viewing".[36] eh... this feels kind of non-neutral to me (two negative opinions made to seem less-than one positive). I'd remove "although" and just separate them with a semi-colon. Maybe I'm just confused I haven't watched any Star Trek and so I didn't really understand the "Trill" reference even with the link

Heartfox (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair assessment. It does put too much of my own opinion into the reviews and can be read as favoring one response over another. I agree that a semi-colon is better and more neutral. I have removed the trill reference completely as it is unnecessarily confusing to an unfamiliar reader and it does not add much to the overall sentence. As someone that has only seen Voyager, I'd be hard-pressed to define what a trill is myself since they do not appear in this installment of Star Trek.
I have a quick question about these two sentences. I do not have access to any of these three sources. I included the Star Trek Monthly one because it was the only favorable review that I could find for this episode (at least from a reliable source). Do you think I should keep this part? I am only wondering because all I can say is that they gave a positive/negative review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, how did you add the info if you "do not have access"? I'm confused.

I think it's okay to keep them. The other reviews described do give more specific details, so as long as the whole section isn't just x said it was good, y said it was bad (without saying why), I would personally keep them. Heartfox (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Thank you for the response. I know about the reviews from the Memory Alpha entry on the episode, but I could not track down the full reviews for them. Aoba47 (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: well in that case I would remove them as Memory Alpha is on Fandom and Fandom is considered generally unreliable per WP:RSPSOURCES and (even though they're probably correct) this is for FA so...

@Heartfox: Understood. Removed that part. Aoba47 (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support the promotion of this article. Heartfox (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the review. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you with any Wikipedia work. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Tintor2

I'll be doing the 'source review. I used two citation bots for both archiving and fixing any issue. I was wondering about IMDb as a source but it seems it is well handled by the article. Every source is reliable and the citations are quite consistent. As as a result, I'll give it a direct pass. Good luck with this article Aoba.Tintor2 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and using the citation bots. I have immense respect for the editors that put together the citation bots. I included the IMDb ranking because it was discussed in by a third-party, but I think it is always good to pay close attention to how IMDb is used. I have added a part about when IMDb ranking was published as I am not sure if that is subject to change. I do not think it is (particularly for an older show like this), but I wanted to play on the safe side. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SatDis

Hiya, well done on an excellent article. With no background in Star Trek, I was easily able to follow along. Hopefully I can provide the insight of a casual reader. Please let me know if there's a specific section you would like feedback on from an outside reader. I have also worked backwards through the article, apologies.

I have just scanned through the references and I believe that any mention of Star Trek or Star Trek: Voyager in reference to the television series should be italicised; I believe even if the published article title doesn't follow that protocol.

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruditis 2003, pp. 170-171. The dash should be – , check this for others, but I think you're okay.

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"compared the plot negatively" I don't like "negatively", maybe "she unfavourably compared the plot to..."?

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"with Harry Kim put in a role similar to Odysseus" Is there a better word for "put"? "Placed", "adapted" or "his role paralleling that of..."?

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you place a brief description such as "the Sirens from the epic poem Homer's Odyssey"?

Revised. Although I did not use a link for epic poem to avoid MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"rather than featuring the female captain" Remove "featuring" or change to "utilising" or "making use of"?

Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I really dislike "put" in "forgot to put alien writing on". You could write "inscribe" to make it sound more professional. Also, what is alien writing? Symbols, hieroglyph, emblems? Yes, the quote mentions "Sharpies" but can the article paraphrase to "black markers" or something similar? This sentence just reads like a Twitter anecdote.

Revised. I can remove this part completely if you find it too trivial. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Rush had some difficulty with the Taresian actresses... I had to do a little convincing, but we got there" Have I missed something? As I am unsure what the "convincing" and "difficulty" is all about... especially as it is the start of a new section.

I have copy-edited this part to hopefully be clearer. Rush is referencing how the actresses were uncomfortable playing more sexualized roles. Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"more action and sex". Did the executives want sex in the episode, or sex appeal?

The episode does include a few on the nose sexual references, but since sex is not shown on the episode itself, I've changed it to sex appeal to better reflect the actual content. Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise that I couldn't find much to critique - I really had to nit-pick. This article is very well written and I will be happy to lend my support to it. I appreciate your support on my featured article review as well. SatDis (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SatDis: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if anything else requires further improvement. I can remove the Twitter part completely as it was a later addition, but I wanted to get your feedback before making a decision on my own. I will look at your FAC by the end of this week at the latest. Thank you again, and I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job revising those suggestions. I think the reword of the Twitter note makes it sound a lot more notable, and definitely worth keeping. Well done, happy to support this article. Thanks again! SatDis (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

"Rush focused on treating the Taresians" What does that mean?

Thank you for pointing this out. I am not sure how I missed it. I must have accidentally delete a part while revising this section. I have revised this part some what and included a quote to hopefully clarify the meaning. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"he had some difficulty with the Taresian actresses" That sounds a little strong -- and they're not Taresian actresses, they're human actresses! I confess the whole paragraph makes me cringe a little, but maybe that's just because you're quoting interviews from the '90s.

Apologies for that. It was not my intention and if there is anything in the prose that contributes to the cringe, then please let me know. I have attempted to revise this part, but let me know if further work is necessary.
Looking back on the source, I realize Rush attributed his difficulty to the episode itself and how to best portray these female characters and not the actresses. Unfortunately, a certain amount of cringe is unavoidable with this episode. The Geisha comparison was the one that really made me roll my eyes. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Prior to the episode's production, Kathryn Janeway's actor Kate Mulgrew said Star Trek: Voyager and the Odyssey both use "mythic storytelling"." I am not quite sure the point of this sentence.

Removed. It was something added in one of my early drafts for the article, but I forgot about it later. It is not really about the episode and was from my research on Voyager's connections to the Odyssey. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased the sexism of the plot is acknowledged. I wonder if a note about sexism and the fact fans seem to hate it is worth mentioning in the lead? Just thinking aloud -- I appreciate that the lead is already long.

I am glad that the plot's sexism is discussed in sources (both popular and scholarly). I have added a part to the lead, and changed a part in the "Critical reception" subsection to match this. Please let me know if this needs further improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to insist on anything, but it is not usual to provide locations/publishers for journals/magazines in reference lists. Meanwhile, it is usual to provide locations and publishers for books. At the moment, you don't seem to be consistent on what you're providing and when.

There is nothing with insisting as I want the articles (and citations) to be in the best shape. I have removed the locations, but kept the publishers to be consistent with the books. I can remove the publishers from the journals/magazines though if necessary.

"From the Replicator" is included in the bibliography, but is not cited.

Removed as that citation is no longer used in the article. Apologies for forgetting to remove it when I removed the in-text citation. Aoba47 (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Thank you for your help with the article. Your copy-edits have helped to improve the article immensely. I have tried my best to address your above comments, but I would more than happy to do further revision. I find this episode fascinating because it is really representative of Voyager's behind-the-scenes issues while also being a time capsule on how women were represented in the 90s. Female representation can definitely be improved further, but looking back at this episode does make me realize at least some progress has been made. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SandyGeorgia

The only nit I can find to pick is:

Harv ref error: Baker, Djoymi (2018). To Boldly Go: Marketing the Myth of Star Trek. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78831-008-6. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBaker2018.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out, and apologies for that. I somehow completely skipped this citation while writing the article. I have pulled information from the source and attempted to incorporate it into the article. I will look through it again tomorrow to clean up the prose. It is quite interesting because it adds to the point on how this episode connects with other moments in the Star Trek franchise. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

@FAC coordinators: Sorry for the ping, but I wanted to check on this nomination's status as it has received a fair amount of commentary/support and had a source review and an image review. I hope everyone is doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning! The next time I have a chance to go through the list (likely tomorrow or Friday) I will assess whether it's ready for promotion. Unless one of my fellow coords goes through before that. --Laser brain (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, and apologies again. I was just curious about it, and I am not in any rush with this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.