Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rejoined/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) 20:04, 30 March 2016 [1].

Rejoined

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC), Miyagawa[reply]

This episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine features one of the first televised lesbian kisses, and was pretty controversial back in its day. Article has gone through a pretty thorough GAN and PR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake

Generally a good read. Just some things that I noticed scanning through, as well as looking through the references.

Tim Ryan and James Noah are red links. This needs fixing: either find their articles are their current locations or remove the links.

I've removed those redlinks. I just did a double check to see if there was any obvious information out there which would mean that an article could be created in the future and apart from the stubbiest of stubs (a short filmography from each which even then wouldn't be simple to cite) I don't think that an article could be realistically created. So I've removed the links rather than create a stub for each. Miyagawa (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...where joined hosts never met anyone that they didn't already know." - Replace "didn't" with "did not" per MOS.

Fixed. Sorry, bad habit I'm trying to get out of. Shame we can't get Data to proof read these! ;) Miyagawa (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Ira Steven Behr in the context of this show's production? Never heard of them.

I've now linked showrunner immediately prior to his first mention, as while it was stated there, it wasn't linked. Behr was the executive producer in charge of the series (the showrunner). Miyagawa (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...saying that "Star Trek stood for" making statements such as seen in "Rejoined"." - The quote in this sentence seems very short. Could you explain this?

It is a snippet from a much larger quote from Moore regarding the clearance processes they had to go through to get a same sex romance on the show, specifically following the negative fan reaction to TNG's "The Host". The full quote is "They questioned us closely about our intentions, and why we were doing it, and how it would work in the story, and how far we were going to go, they saw that we were sincere, that it was a good story, that we could say something with the show, that it was what Star Trek stood for and that it was actually something to be proud of. They went for it." So as you can see, it is mostly a long run on sentence. But possibly we could extend the quote to be add that Moore also said that the storyline was "something to be proud of" as well. Miyagawa (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A general thing, but it would be best to archive all online references where possible.

I've archived the two that were missing. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 13's url needs updating.

I just double checked and it is linking to the right spot - the url for the clipping shouldn't link directly to the newspaper page itself, as if the indexing system is changed then it'll become a dead url. Whereas by linking to the clipping page (containing the link to the page) it'll be safer in the long term. Miyagawa (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 6 has a "subscription required" message attached to it. Can this be resolved?

I just checked at the Washington Post website to see if there was a direct link that could be used instead, but there isn't. Miyagawa (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably have a second look through once these issues have been addressed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second Pass

The entire "alien kiss" paragraph switches from "LGBT" to using the term "queer". Is there a special reason for this outside the one quote featuring the word?
- It uses queer because that's what most academic sources use (it's also purposefully a bit more broad than the LGBT definition, especially how the number of letters tends to be growing). If you think it's an issue, it doesn't seem like it should be hard to reword the LGBT mentions to queer for consistency. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's alright. Now that it's been explained, it can remain as is.
"In using the scene in isolation, alien kisses, Bruce argues, "strips away..." - The phrasing seems a little awkward here. Maybe rephrase as "In using the scene in isolation, Bruce argues that alien kisses "strips away..."
- Reworded this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I saw this time around. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I don't see anything that stands out anymore. I'll willingly Support this article's upgrade to FA status. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

"that a group of Trill scientists will be arriving soon at Deep Space Nine" - Deep Space Nine doesn't need to be italicised if it's referring to the space station.
"Jadzia is the eighth host of the symbiont Dax" - minor, but I'd rearrange this as the Dax symbiont, as it's referred that way in the show. Super minor point though (isn't that what FACs are for?)
"He added that it was an extraordinary story about losing someone you love and having that person restored to you some time afterwards" - a part of this sounds like it's from a direct quote. Can a small part of it be in quotations?
"two The Next Generation episodes; "The Next Phase" and Frame of Mind" - "Frame of Mind" missing quotations
"Instead, the symbiont was placed in a new female host called Ezri, but the prejudice against re-association first highlighted in "Rejoined" was mentioned in the seventh season episodes" - I remember reading from somewhere that they needed a female host because they didn't want Nana Visitor to be the only female main cast member. If possible, could this be mentioned? It seems relevant
"Visual Effect Supervisors Gary Hutzel and Glenn Neufeld" - does 'Visual Effect Supervisors' have to be capitalised? Same with Visual Effects Co-ordinator. I'm not sure, I could be wrong
"as it meant he did not have to attempt re-create the detail already seen in the Bajoran wormhole" - as it meant that he did not have to attempt re-create the detail already seen in the Bajoran wormhole
"there was a strong negative reaction from some viewers" - negative reaction from viewers isn't mentioned in the lead
"one channel in the Southern United States took the step of editing out" - link Southern United States for accessibility

Those were all of the prose nitpickings I could find upon my initial readthrough. The references all seem good, so I couldn't find any issues there. Once all of the above are addressed I'll take another look. JAGUAR 13:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, those should all be addressed now. Mind you, I'm going to have to go through the DS9 Good Articles I've done and remove the italics now! (Already fixed the space station article itself). Thanks for raising that, I'd never noticed that stations (even if in space!) weren't in italics. Miyagawa (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing them! Even more worrying is that Memory Alpha calls the station Deep Space 9, not 'nine'. I don't know if it's official or if they named it differently to disambiguate it from the show. I know that ships like Defiant are italicised but I knew the station wasn't! Anyway, with all of the comments out of the way, I'll be happy to lend a support. JAGUAR 12:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It must be to differentiate between the station and the series. I just double checked The Making of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens as well as the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion and they both use "Nine" in relation to both the station and the series. Just to note since I mentioned it, the Making book has been checked for anything helpful to this article, but since it mostly relates to first season info, there wasn't anything to add. Thanks for the support! Miyagawa (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z105space

I enjoyed reading this. Here is a few points I noticed during my read.

You should say who Michael Piller is in terms of the show's production.
It is not compulsory, but you may want to use alt text for all images per WP:ALT.
"The episode was directed by main cast member Avery Brooks, who played Benjamin Sisko in the series. He later said that "Rejoined" was his favourite out of the episodes he directed. He said that the episode was about love, and the choices that result from that. He added that it was an extraordinary story about losing someone you love and having that person restored to you some time afterwards." – I feel the word "he" should be used less in this section.
"as the producers didn't want Kira Nerys to be the only female main character." replace the word "didn't" with "did not".

I will give my support once the above issues have been rectified. Z105space (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, those should all be dealt with now. Miyagawa (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They have been indeed. I can now give my Support for this article to achieve FAC status. Z105space (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- image/source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to pre-empt a couple of questions on two particular sources - Jordan Hoffmann writes a column called "One Trek Mind" for the official ST website, and TrekNation has a bit of an unusual relationship with the official website. It up until recent was one of only four fan sites linked to from the official website (one of those sites, TrekWeb, has sadly gone down), and for about 18 months it's news stories were being directly linked to from the website as well. Miyagawa (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are both appropriately licensed, though I would suggest repeating a citation in the first's caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've added that to the first caption. Miyagawa (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at refs and sources by Cas Liber

Ok, looking now....

Refs formatted consistently.
FN 1 - used 5 times - material faithful to source.
FN 22 - used 3 times - material faithful to source.
Kwan - used once - material faithful to source.
FN 14 - used once - material faithful to source.

Ok all seems in order....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian Rose

Although I often tweak the odd word in articles before promoting, I felt that with only three comprehensive reviews another look from top to bottom wouldn't hurt, so am recusing from closing this. I might add that I've never seen any of the post-original Star Trek series, so am coming to this with a completely open mind...! I'm pretty happy with the prose and comprehensiveness following my copyedit, but can't quite make out this sentence: On the one hand, the magic trick produces a "pleasurable surprise", while, on the other, it relies upon deception; this deception mirrors that necessary, due to Trill norms, in the reacquaintance of the characters. -- the particular word that jars is "necessary"; it seems to make no sense in this context, unless perhaps it's a typo for "necessity", or there's a missing word somewhere. Pls help... Other than that I think I'm happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that phrasing might be mine. "that" refers to "the [other] deception", so- "it relies upon deception; this deception mirrors the deception necessary, due to Trill norms...". Obviously, the present wording helps avoid excessive repetition. Whether or not it's mine, I've no objection to it being changed if unclear. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha, thanks Josh. I would probably use similar shorthand myself to avoid repetition but of course it's always easier to comprehend one's own shorthand... ;-) How would you feel about it reading "this mirrors the deception necessary, due to Trill norms, in the reacquaintance of the characters"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing some other edits to the article, so I've jumped in here and made this one too. Miyagawa (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, happy to support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MPJ-US

So big Star Trek fan, it's always great to see these types of articles come throgh FAC

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but we all know how hard it can be to get people to provide feedback. MPJ-US 17:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "American Science Fiction TV" reference is dead.

I've removed the link. I've got an offline copy if needed. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by the reference to "Solitary" in the lead, is that a different episode?

I think that got removed before I made the rest of these edits. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I woud have expected "Lt Cmdr." to be spelled out the first time it's used as "Lieutenant Commander"

Spelled out fully now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see some Britsh terms such as "socialise" and "realisation", which may be okay - just surprised to see British English in an article about a U.S. show.

That's all me - British English writer doing American-centric episodes. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Storyline" is either "story line" or "Story-line"? not sure which is more appropriate

I've gone for the non hyphened version as suggested by some online dictionaries. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I'd have thought US style would've been to make it one un-hyphenated word ("storyline"), which was used in occasionally in the article and to which I standardised a few instances of "story line" (though admittedly I missed the "ise" words!). Not a big issue though, as long as it's consistent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"not have to attempt re-create" should be "not have to attempt to re-create"

Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"co-ordinator" should be "coordinator"

Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"on board Defiant" should be "on board the Defiant"

Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a ton of issues, which is a good thing. MPJ-US 17:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! Much appreciated. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2016 (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) 20:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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