Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek: Deep Space Nine/archive1

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine[edit]

I'm particularly interested to hear opinions about the "Plots" section, because I tried to make it flow nicely, but maybe someone thinks it can transition better between subjects. I loved this series and would like to see it featured. If length/depth is a problem (on the plots or any other section), I can add more -- I was trying not to make it overly long and keep it at a level of depth non-fans would find interesting to read, but maybe it needs more. Yelgrun 21:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, this is now quite a good article. The plot section is a good summary, which is important as it is something that could quickly get far too long. The article could still could use some improvements. There is very little behind the scenes information. Nothing on the writers, directors, or filming locations. Very little about ratings, broadcast networks, or how popular the show was, and nothing about DVD releases. Trivia sections are also bad form. Most of what is there should be merged elsewhere in the article, moved to one of the subpages, or simply deleted as unnecessary. Some statements need supporting evidence such as "many Trek fans have never watched it to this day," "fans tend to overlook the first two 'pre-Dominion' seasons," and "many fans objected to the Defiant initially." - SimonP 00:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least now I have an idea of what to put on my to-do list, I wasn't really sure what I should add since I'm still new to Wiki stuff. Thanks for the input. :) What about areas like Roddenberry's approval? I stated that (to my knowledge) there's no confirmation or denial about his opinion of the series, but when it comes to fan views I described, is it enough to simply represent both takes on the issue rather than cite someone's blog or a message board? Yelgrun 00:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a lot of books published on DS9, I'm sure a number of them discuss fan reaction to the series. The best option would be to cite one of these works. As to Roddenberry's view, try to include what is known, but make sure to avoid speculation. - SimonP 00:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good job at making it not sound fannish, but a lot of times it sounds like its making a point instead of saying points made by others. "One of the more interesting developments...", don't say its interesting, other people will figure that out for themselves. Also alot of what stated in themes needs sources to people who have crtically anaylized the show. Taboo's also suffers from this problem. Just because it usually is a taboo, doesn't mean people cared when they watched the show. Say who thought these taboos were issues. (And even though its referenced I can not beilieve people disliked "Prophet and Lace", disliking Ferengi episodes disqualifies that site as a useful source in my biased opinion) I agree with everything else Yelgrun said, with one more addition why are the episode links off site? The link to the episodes should link to Wikipedia's article on the episode. MechBrowman 01:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on the wording; about the ep links, most don't have pages or are barren compared to MA (see The Jem'Hadar and MemoryAlpha:The Jem'Hadar, Emissary (DS9 episode) and MemoryAlpha:Emissary (episode), etc). Without getting into the MA vs Wikipedia debate, I'm not sure which is the lesser evil, since I think red links and stubs galore looks tacky. As for "Profit and Lace," "often cited as one of the worst episodes" is biased when I read it again, but it did receive a lot of criticism. I'll look for a scholarly source. (I thought the ep was funny, but a voice in my head kept reminding me it's Star Trek and not Mrs. Doubtfire.) Yelgrun 05:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that site is better episode resource, it is inapropriate to link off site in that way. Don't worry too much about something you already have sourced (Though I know some magazines like TV Guide have rated the best and worst Star Trek episodes, and all the best dramas have humor episodes, but this whole thing is completely off topic).MechBrowman 14:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I appreciate the feedback. :-) Thanks. Yelgrun 15:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues, for example "Although the episode was widely praised for its poignant message about bigotry, it inevitably attracted some criticism from more conservative audiences" 'inevitably' is a perception here.... also, there are several short paragraphs here and there. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since Gene Roddenberry died two years before DS9 began, I'm afraid we'll never know his opinion of the show. Rick Norwood 21:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do think some of the POV stuff has gone away, but you're right, parts do sound like (and I don't mean this as a criticism to contributors) they're written from the POV of a DS9 fan than a neutral/encyclopedic one. I think this article does have a lot of promise; as for Gene Roddenberry, representing different interpretations (which it does) without too much speculation should be fine. As mentioned above though sources always help. Cheechie Chung 09:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]