Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia 00:27, 27 December 2010 [1].

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home edit

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's "the one with the whales", and widely considered the Star Trek film most accessible to non-fans. In this article, learn how Leonard Nimoy's voice became the droning of a powerful alien probe, how assistant producers make great punk rockers, and how Star Trek was *this close* to having Eddie Murphy in a starring role. (I think this article meets criteria, natch.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images File:004-the_voyage_home_poster_art.png I can't see it cutting it at WP:NFCC, the graphical tools used in marketing isn't really discussed. I like the use of File:Vasquez_Rocks_2.jpg that is quite innovative and other FAC could learn from this usage Fasach Nua (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On an aside I wish people would stop adding "...to provide the reader with a clear indicator they have reached the proper article." to FU Rationales Fasach Nua (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Official movie posters on articles about the movies they represent - even if the art or image is not discussed directly - is standardly accepted by NFCC requirements, as it is an identification of the copyrighed work in question in the presence of critical commentary. Yes, if there was more about how the image was developed, great, but - effectively - it is cover art which we accept no more than one of for a copyrighted work. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I will point out that this is through consensus, and even I've tried to require strictly infobox image requirements with no luck.) --MASEM (t) 20:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"standardly accepted by NFCC"? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is, that though many many discussions I've seen, no one questions the use of a single cover/poster image in the infobox of an article about that work even if the image is not specifically discussed in detail. It's what I've called the "image for identification" situation, that consensus seems set to allow this and very difficult to change. It arguably falls just inside the allowable uses that the Foundation set out, so we're pretty much stuck with these. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation - I have struggled with the Start Trek theme templates, there are lists of Star Trek Klingon stories, Star Trek time travel stories and Star Trek Vulcan stories. Who decides if it is a Vulcan story, is Spock in an episode enough? How do these list meet WP:V as is required by WP:FA Criteria Fasach Nua (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I killed them. I agree with you that they're far more trouble than they're worth and have verifiability issues (I removed them from the other film articles I've worked on, and I guess I forgot about that one.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I really like this article - it is far better than many articles here - since it gives the impression of having been put together naturally, instead of "let's wedge this in so we can include that reference" that too many potential FAs seem to suffer from. However, I have noticed a few problems - mostly carelessness in the plot summary rather than anything substantial.

  • The planetary distress signal is described by Uhura as from the Federation. The President describes himself in a Federation capacity. Not Starfleet.
  • "Slingshot maneovure" is linked to gravity assist: there is no ref to that and the film itself makes no such assertion. I have vague memories that time travel in the Star Trek universe is accomplished by acceleration in a steep gravity well - the star provides that well as opposed to a target for a gravity assist. Regardless, that link is purely speculative and should be dropped.
  • "Uhura is beamed back but Chekov is severely injured in an escape attempt and captured." Surely that is the wrong way around: "Uhura is beamed back but Chekov is captured and severely injured in an escape attempt."
  • Talk of recharging the Klingon ship is inaccurate - the film talks of the need to recrystallise the dilithium. Accordign to Star Trek canon the ship is actually powered by antimatter reserves not mentioned in the film.
  • "Kirk reluctantly allows her on the ship in return for the tracking codes." Where is the evidence for this? Nothing in the screenplay suggests it was any kind of trade.
  • "The crew locates George and Gracie before they are killed by whalers". The whales were not killed.
  • "In light of their heroic actions, all charges against the Enterprise crew are waived" The President explains that the charges were dismissed due to "mitigating factors", not as a "reward".

If these can be addressed I'd have no problem supporting it as an FA.

However, I do have one final comment that is more subjective than the others - I find the references to "Taylor" distracting. The use of surname is consistent with how other characters are referred to in the text, but inconsistent with usage in the film, where she is usually referred to as Gillian. Consider the reader - someone who saw this film a week or a month ago is unlikely to remember that the love interest is called Taylor. You stand a much better chance with Gillian. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as you say it's consistency to use last names. I've tweaked some of the above: as to others, I'm using the official synopsis at StarTrek.com, where "recharging" is explicitly used, and the distress call is being described as Starfleet. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs, but you had 2 dead external links- I fixed one, but you'll need to do the other- this (ref 65) is redirecting to a timedout page, presumably because it's using cookies and you're linking to a non-static search page. --PresN 03:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • Ref. 3: Rioux not defined in references
  • Ref. 7: Gire is out of alphabetical sequence in the references list
  • Ref. 35: page number lacking
  • Ref 65 (Oscars) connection failure. Temporary, maybe, but please check

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Very little spotchecking possible, but no problems with what I did. Brianboulton (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The Oscars thing seems to be temporary. I cleared my cache and cookies and the page still shows up fine for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Critical response section seems relatively light on content. It contains three very small paragraphs. Can you expand that section? As an example, the website MRQE lists almost 60 reviews for this film. There are numerous viewpoints that haven't been covered. DeWaine (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a summary; based on the reviews I have, I didn't want to beat quotes into everything. It's broad without excessive detail. The thing about the MRQE you linked is that the vast majority of those sources are years if not decades after the film was released, and thus rather poor for using for contemporary reception (which is the important thing.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do we really need those specific dates in the lead? I can't imagine why anyone would care about those dates or remember them, unless they are a huge Star Trek fan. As a matter of fact I just looked at them, and I don't even remember them. To put them in what is basically a short summary of the article seems unwise tbh. AaronY (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean the principal photography and release dates? I would think they are highly relevant. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments. Excellent work as usual. I made a bunch of minor changes on my way through, so hopefully I did create too much of a wreck of things. I just have a few things for you to look at:
    • Please check the Conti quotation in the second to last para in Effects. I placed the period inside the closing quote as it seems like it was probably part of the original quotation.
    • Please review the tense use in "Audio". It was mostly past tense, and I changed some of it to present as is appropriate when you are describing a work. So, Rosenman changed the director's mind, but the whale's communication with the probe utilizes atmospheric music, etc. I think I fixed it all, but it could use a second pair of eyes.
    • Paramount "backlot" and Paramount "lot": are the different? Inquiring minds want to know.
    • Jeff Bond, ever likely to become an article?
    • Are you kidding me with the Thatcher punk song? You have no idea how long I have searched for that damned song, just so I could board a bus somewhere with it blaring. Now... my hopes are dashed.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct on the first point, you pretty much got it on the second, harmonized the third. On Bond, he's a published author and writer for notable magazines, so maybe he could have an article. As for the last bit, well, sorry. To be young again? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few nitpicks. I peer reviewed this article and found it to be excellent. It has improved since then, just a few points from re-reading it.

  • Is it worth saying in the lead who Shatner was (for the uninitiated)?
  • In the plot section, a problem with crew. Is it singular or plural? We have "the crew take" and "the crew find" (plural) but also "the crew splits up" and "the crew locates" (singular).
  • "Kirk attempts to learn the tracking codes for the whales from Taylor, but she declines." She can't decline if she has not being asked anything. Maybe "asks Taylor to give him the tracking codes but she declines" or change "declines" to "does not co-operate".
  • "that verges on tongue-in-cheek but isn't," Is the comma correct in this quotation? It seems a semi-colon or period would be better.
  • "The effects crew focused on realizing the probe "practically" using in-camera tricks; this meant lighting the model on stage while filming to avoid time-consuming optical effects work later." Not quite sure what this means!
  • "...the modelmakers repainted the probe a shiny black and pockmarked the surface for greater texture and interest." And presumably filmed again?
  • Just to check: "its miles of fiber optic lighting" mrans literally miles?
  • Who was responsible for the punk scene? Meyer, who had wanted a similar idea in a previous film, or Nimoy's personal experiences?
  • Two points left over from PR, neither of which are serious enough to prevent my support: The article doesn't state when the film was commissioned. It might be useful to say who decided to make it, when producers were put in place, when it was decided to give the go-ahead, etc.
  • And the article frequently talks about "Paramount" as making decisions. It may be helpful, but not essential, to say who was making these decisions at Paramount.
  • Spot check of online sources revealed no problems, but most sources unavailable to me.

No other problems, it is very clear (especially the technical sections) and the prose flows very well. Seems to cover all the topic very thoroughly. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the return with comments. I switched everything to plural as I think that's the proper way to do it when referring to multiple individuals. Yeah, the issues with quotations are in the actual source. As to the commissioning and usage of "Paramount", unfortunately I can't clarify more due to the vague descriptions of the sources; on occasion they might mention a specific person within Paramount, but most often just lump them together (I can easily find out who was running the show back then, but it's still questionable to assume that they are whom the text refers to.)
Re: The punk scene: it's confusing, but I don't see that much discord between the sources. Nimoy said that he encountered some jerk on a bus and would have pinched his brains out if he were Spock; Meyer's quote says that the situation was similar to one that he wanted for another movie. The actual "which parts informed which" is impossible to tell because we don't have the script (and in any case Nimoy had input into it); if I had to guess the punk character on the bus itself was Meyer's contribution, while Spock was the one who wanted to pinch him. :)
As to "realizing the probe 'practically' [...]" I'm at a loss as to how to rephrase it. The lingo is that everything you do without opticals (now just "special effects") and in-camera is "practical". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything seems fine, and no problem on the unanswerables. Great work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great movie article. Excellent work. JJ98 (Talk) 01:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: My favorite Star Trek film! I had a mind to give it a peer review, but the size was daunting. Alas, before I finished reading and compiling my thoughts, here it is. Being bold, I changed what I felt was minor and listed those others at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home/archive1#Comments by Jappalang. Jappalang (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support: the article gives a comprehensive look on the film (it might be over-detailed in some parts but it is not to the point of distraction in my view). That said, I believe the uncited statements in the last part of Cast to be a violation of WP:V (as detailed in my comments on this FAC talk), and am not comfortable to support until that is resolved. Jappalang (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've sourced the pertinent information (most of it was in the Okuda text, although digging up a source for Rand proved more difficult than I expected.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: well-written, and the article looks perfect so far. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well-written article, covering all the aspects I could think of. I have just a handful of minor comments:
  • "The film's humor and unconventional story was well received by critics": sure this should be "were received"?
  • "Kirk scared away the whalers by decloaking the starship in front of them": is there any particular reason for this being in the past tense when the rest of the plot section is in present?
  • ...but it also meant the film might be ridiculed": I think just a little more could be added on why Murphy's inclusion in the film might lead to ridicule. Presumably it was because he's a comic actor, but maybe there's another reason.
  • "Meyer wrote the story's middle portion, taking place on 20th century Earth" and "...continue to wear their 23rd century clothing": shouldn't the 2xth century bits be hyphenated as they're compound adjectives? Nev1 (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2010 (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/Star_Trek_IV:_The_Voyage_Home/archive1&oldid=1138472096"