Talk:The Augments

the Augments

Currently, in the plot summary, the article mentions "the Augments" as if everyone knows who they are. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 09:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Copyedits needed. See below for details: Fixed	Pass
(b) (MoS)	OK.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	OK.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources are pretty damn poor: Fixed	Pass
(c) (original research)	OK.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Plot lacks necessary details: Fixed	Pass
(b) (focused)	OK.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
OK.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Stable.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	OK.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	OK.	Pass

Result

Result

Notes

Pass

Almost done. A few key plot elements missing (see below) and not enough information on the relationship between Soong and Data's later creation (perhaps in production or somewhere else); more can be said in reception per discussion below. Other than that, putting on hold. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Fixed. Again, please get help copyediting before nominating next time. Viriditas (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Lead

• Plot in the lead needs serious copyedits. Pretend you know nothing about the episode and then read it before you edit. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• It received mixed reviews by critics, who spoke negatively of the characterisation of Malik, but praised the performance of Brent Spiner.
  • ...as Soong and the relationship between T'Pol and Tucker. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Added. Miyagawa (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• The episode is the last of a three episode arc, preceded by "Borderland", and "Cold Station 12".
  • Try to avoid repeating the same words in the same sentence. Instead of repeating "episode" twice, rewrite it. You could try, for example, "It is the last of a three-episode arc..." Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Done - I also reordered the following sentence to avoid the use of episode there as well. Miyagawa (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Plot

• Opening of the plot assumes the reader is familiar with the cliffhanger in the previous episode. It would be a good idea to briefly recap the last scene of the previous episode in one sentence so that the opening of the plot makes sense to someone who hasn't seen it. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• No mention of Khan Noonien Singh and the sleeper ship SS Botany Bay as relayed by Malik. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Added. Miyagawa (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Miyagawa: as you can tell, I made a few copyedits here and there, but I find that the plot is still missing key information. For example, right before it ends with "Soong returns to the Starfleet Detention Center", it fails to note the key point that the Klingons have called off any retaliation (which we learn from Archer's log). This brings us, of course, to another missing point, which is the pursuit of the Enterprise by multiple Klingon vessels. See if you can review the plot section yet again, trim the fat here and there and add the necessary plot elements. Feel free to delete if you must. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Miyagawa: pinging you again to the plot section, in case you missed the original ping and note. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I got it - just planning to rewatch the episode today before making those edits. Miyagawa (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @Viriditas: Sorry about the delay, I've edited the plot section now. Miyagawa (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Production

• The return of genetically enhanced humans as previously seen in the Star Trek: The Original Series episode "Space Seed" and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was intended to tie Enterprise closer together to The Original Series.
  • I realize you've got this line in every episode of the arc, but I'm curious if you have access to any other sources (or even the current ones) that talk about this a bit more. My pet theory is that the reason some critics disliked Malik here and saw him as a "cardboard villain" was because the writing and direction tried too hard to match the TOS production values. I suspect that the stereotype of the Augment was imported from the TOS approach quite intentionally, but this kind of homage had the potential to alienate viewers and critics, which judging by the response is exactly what happened. However, when you take this into account, along with the production elements deliberately alluding to TOS production values (lighting of Malik's room, his reaction to Persis, etc.) the disconnect occurs when it conflicts with the newer production values we've become so accustomed to already and fails to pass the Star Trek crossover boundary. I wonder if the sources say anything else about this. In other words, Malik was true to the production values of TOS, but this didn't quite work when our expectations of the Enterprise production value offset it. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The problem is that Enterprise sources are few and far between. I’ve got access to some books which discuss the themes in the various Star Trek series, and even there the entire Enterprise series is mostly overlooked. I would say that the only chance of such issues being raised in a source would be if someone started to do a series of retro reviews on the show (much like has happened for other series within the franchise at Tor.com etc). Miyagawa (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• There's a bit of backstory in an article by Scott Pierce that could be used here, particularly the fact that 1) Dr. Arik Soong is the ancestor of the man who built Data (important considering the end of the plot) 2) making it clear that the Augments were responsible for the Eugenics Wars, 3) that Soong raised them until he was captured by Starfleet and imprisoned. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Additional information here that you may or may not need.[1] Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I had already included the production report itself in the article. Miyagawa (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Reception and home media release

• She also criticised the use of Persis' death by Malik
  • I'm not sure what is supposed to convey from a critical perspective. Please revisit the source and rewrite. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I've added a quote as I felt that explained it better than I could. Miyagawa (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Andy Wilson has an excellent review of the episode posted on Big Shiny Robot that I think should be added. I know you've talked about the paucity of sources, so you should use whatever you can get (provided its reliable, and I think BSR is). Wilson makes the great observation that "The real story in this arc is not the journey of the Enterprise or the Augments, but a personal journey of Arik Soong. He goes from believing that humanity needed to be improved by use of radical genetic engineering to seeing that humanity is not prepared for that sort of unbridled power. And we see him then, at the end of the arc, turn away from genes as a method to create a perfect man, but to "perhaps cybernetics," saying it might take a generation or two..."[2] I think some of this really needs to be mentioned since it is a key touchstone of the episode. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added that under review, and added a note to explain the relationship between the Soongs and Data. Miyagawa (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Michelle Erica Green also touches upon points about Soong in her review but you didn't mention them. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Added a little more from her review. Miyagawa (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• More support for linking Soong to the creation of Data in this source.[3] Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't have direct access to the source, and the Google Books version doesn't have any individual page details so there isn't complete enough information to use it. Miyagawa (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)