Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tasha Yar/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 Ian Rose 10:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Tasha Yar

edit

Tasha Yar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it stands up as meeting the FA criteria. Certainly it contains some of the best prose I've ever written and it fits together to become a tightly knit and complete article. I think the referencing is good, with the only question arising out of the referencing that I can see is the single instance of a TrekToday reference. It is a fan website, but one of four highlighted by the official Star Trek website. Miyagawa (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cirt
  1. NOTE: Please respond below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Three (3) redlinks at Robert Lewin (filmmaker), Lianne Langland, and Mart McChesney. Not required, but would be nice if they could be made at the very least as small sourced appropriately referenced stubs.
  3. Please remove the two (2) pull-quote boxes in subsections Concept and development and Reception. I've been told in the past on multiple occasions that these are unencyclopedic.
  4. Bibliography - no need for this to be small font formatting, there isn't really that many that it needs to be made small, would look better at regular size.
  5. References - no need for sub-subsections within this subsection. Just have Notes and then References. That is the general standard for most articles and is used in examples at WP:LAYOUT.
  6. Reception - suggest paraphrasing and/or quote-trimming some more of the quotes used in this sect.
  7. Image review: File:Denise Crosby STICCon 2003.jpg = hosted at Wikimedia Commons and checks out okay. File:Marina Sertis (7271366256).jpg = hosted on Wikimedia Commons, image page there is fine. File:TashaYar.jpg = appropriate fair use rationale given on image page, hosted locally.
  8. File:TashaYar.jpg - suggest removing this image from the article. It's not needed to understand the text, and perhaps could be substituted in the infobox with a different alternative free-use image. That way, the article itself would be more portable to other Wikipedias.
  9. NOTE: Please respond below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  10. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia with this most interesting quality improvement project, — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. The small font formatting for bibliography has been removed and the subsections in references has been dropped with it renamed to notes/references. Per the infobox image - the only real alternative would be the image of Denise Crosby used further down the article which wouldn't actually be in character and so probably wouldn't be a viable alternative for the infobox itself. There certainly isn't a free use image that I know of with Crosby in costume. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for those responses, that helps explain a bit. Unfortunately I see the pull-quote boxes are still in the article space. Those should be removed, per multiple comments in the past it seems the Wikipedia community is against pull-quote box usage. — Cirt (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that, and I've had some editors support my use of them in the past, but I've found through repeated quality review including both GAN and FAC that it's best not to have "pull quotes" because they give a negative connotation of potential promotion and POV even when not intended. — Cirt (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that up to date on practices so take everything I say with that in mind, I'm an infrequent FAC commenter, if anything I've stated is incorrect, let me know and pay it no heed. Otherwise:

  • "The character first appeared in the pilot episode of the season, "Encounter at Farpoint"." → pilot episode of the series maybe, season seems odd to put here.
  • In the intro talking about the manner of her death receiving mixed reviews, you stated two negative ones I believe, I suggest swapping out the one about "naff" because it's not a well known term (at least where I'm from, and I had to look it up).
  • "After her departure, archive footage of Crosby as Yar was used the episodes "The Schizoid Man" and "Shades of Gray"." → used in the
  • The episode Code of Honour in paragraph two of Appearances needs to be in quotation marks.
  • Think about linking the episode Encounter at Farpoint in the final paragraph of Appearances, it's only linked in the Intro currently. To add onto this, maybe think about linking all the episodes in this section, even ones previously linked. The sections are adequetly large to allow this without slamming the user too much with overlinking.
  • Finally, unless I'm mistaken you're going to need alt text on your images.--Lightlowemon (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. I've changed season to series (that was the result of overfixing "series" to "season" previously). I've changed naff to "stupid" in the lead - I think that's probably easier to understand. I've changed it to "used in the", and added the quotation marks for Code of Honor. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your most welcome, just noting (mostly for myself and any other reviewers), you decided to not relink Encounter at Farpoint, you haven't included alt text. The only other issue I kind of have is the two negative comments about her death when you've stated it was mixed? Or was the 'typical' security officers death meant to be a positive review? Good job on the fast responses too by the way. --Lightlowemon (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Encounter at Farpoint" is now linked in the article body - I haven't added alt text yet, but I will. I'm going to change "mixed" to "mostly negative" regarding the death as there was one positive comment about it from Gary Westfahl. Miyagawa (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No new issues have been raised and assuming it passes the source check, I'm all for it. --Lightlowemon (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—overall, I'm inclined to support promotion, but I have a few comments to offer first. Starting with the references:

  • Links are repeated unnecessarily in the various footnotes. A publisher, like "CBS Productions" in footnotes 8 and 9 only should be linked the first time it appears, not every use.
  • The company that publishes a newspaper or magazine isn't necessary in citation, especially for well-known papers like The Washington Post, the Chicago Sun-Times or Entertainment Weekly.
    • In cases like the Post-Tribune, the publication location (Gary, IN) should be indicated since it is not part of the paper's title.
    • "Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service" is a newswire; it is not a publication title itself. Either use that or "Knight Ridder" as the publisher only.
    • Italicization of website titles is handled very inconsistently in the footnotes. For example, "AOL TV" is not in italics, but "Star Trek.com" is. "Trek Today" is in italics, but "Tor.com" and "Den of Geek" are not. Either website titles are italicized (as the larger work containing component works) or they are not, but it looks unpolished to have both styles in use.
  • Normally on shortened footnotes, citations to works by two authors would be listed as "Smith & Jones" or "Smith and Jones", but citations to works by three or more authors would be displayed as "Smith, et al." It isn't a big deal, so long as you are consistent, but I thought I'd bring it up to prompt consideration of a change.
  • Changed as noted (but left them as is in the Bibliography section). I'll have to roll out that formatting change to the various episode articles I've done. Quick question - should I be listing the "Reeves-Stevens" cites as simply "Reeves-Stevens" as I do now, or as "Reeves-Stevens & Reeves-Stevens" as there are two of them? Miyagawa (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bibliography should be organized in alphabetical order by last name of the first author. The current order looks unorganized.
      • Done. (I'd previously listed it by publication date). Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That wasn't apparent and before it was quite confusing given that most style guides say to alphabetize by the first author (or first words of a title when no author is listed.)
    • If you're going to use access dates for online sources with publication dates, then the writer/director's guide needs one as well, for consistency with the footnotes above. If possible, I would attempt to track down publication information (location, publisher) for the guide as well, again, to format it consistently with the other citations in the article.
      • I went with a little logic here - although it was an internal document and not really published, it would have been the property of the production company which was Paramount Domestic Television. The show was developed on the Paramount lot, which is in Hollywood, CA. So I've added those to the citation. Miyagawa (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Tulloch citation uses a different format to denote "subscription required", and it should be consistent with the others.

Regarding other items in the article:

  • Ideally, the portal link should not be in an "External links" section. Unlike links to other websites or to our sister projects like Wikimedia Commons and Wikiquote, portals are internal to the English Wikipedia. Normally I would advise that the link should be moved to a "See also" section, and if it were the only item in such a section (which is ok), I would use *{{portal-inline}} instead of {{portal}}.
  • The prose is good, in my opinion.
  • As for the categories, I believe policy is to use only the most specific category necessary. For example, Category:Starfleet lieutenants is a subcategory of both Category:Fictional lieutenants and Category:Starfleet officers. Using only the first of those three links this article to the other two through already existing links in the category tree. That other Star Trek character articles get this concept wrong is not a reason for this one to as well, if it is to be judged as part of "Wikipedia's finest work".

Concerning the comments of other reviewers above me, I have the following to offer:

  • File:TashaYar.jpg should be retained in the article, IMHO, unlike what Cirt has to say. The addition of some simple text describing her appearance, etc., would tie into the use of the photo as primary identification of the actress appearing in costume in her role.
  • I also strongly disagree with the proposed removal of the pull quotes; unlike standard print encyclopedias of the past, Wikipedia is visually different. We're much more likely to include various media like photographs, videos or audio clips in keeping with our existence as a multimedia project born of the Internet Age. Because of copyright concerns, this article has to be limited in the media it uses, so including pull quotes, in my mind, is appropriate to help break up the text, a function that would otherwise only be served by the section headings.
    • Perhaps, to tie into the photo concerns above, the pull quote from the writer's guide could be modified to include any appropriate comments on the appearance of the Yar character.
      • I've added a line about her described appearance (prior to casting) in the main body of the article. Unfortunately it doesn't go into any great lengths, but the writers/directors guide does describe her body type and athletic ability. Miyagawa (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text isn't actually required of FAs, but I do recommend the addition.

All in all, I think these are minor fixes, and I would like to support promotion after they are made. Imzadi 1979 → 21:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Cirt recommended the removal of {{refbegin}} and {{refend}}; I also oppose that as making the references inconsistently styled between the footnotes and the bibliography. The result does make the article less polished, IMHO. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you've inserted those templates, and thanks for tidying up the citations. Whilst I've done a fair few GAs and some FLs, I've never done a FA and I'm never sure which styles are actually the "proper" ones because you see so many different ways of doing things in various articles. So its really good to know by seeing someone else's edits. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's not really a "proper" way to do things, other than keeping consistent within the article. It does look better if we follow standard conventions from various style manuals where our MOS is silent.
  • Support—at this time, I'm willing to support promotion of the article. Any additional polishing that other reviewers may suggest would be minor, and the article meets the criteria at this time, IMHO. Imzadi 1979 → 23:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page

Delegate comments -- First FAC, Miyagawa? If so, a belated welcome on behalf of the delegates... ;-) I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, which I'll request at WT:FAC unless one of the reviewers above would like to give it a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well - fourth attempt. :) First two didn't really have a chance, it was a couple of years ago when I wasn't as experienced with referencing as now, and the third one was only recently which wasn't promoted due to a lack of support. However the prose on this is much better than those previous nominations and the referencing is stronger too. Miyagawa (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check:

  • Ref 3a, fails verification. p. 13 of Nemecek doesn't support that the Macha Hernandez character was supposed to be "tactical officer".
  • Ref 4a, OK.
  • Ref 4b, OK.
  • Ref 14: The article reads "forebear" which doesn't necessarily mean "grandmother". It could mean any ancestor. Are you sure this is accurate?
  • Ref 15, OK.

--Laser brain (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've changed grandmother to ancestor which is more in line with forebear. I've seen it mentioned on enough sites that she was portraying Tasha's grandmother but I wouldn't call any of those reliable for FA purposes and so have simply rectified it to make it more in line with the generality of the source. I'm going to check the Nemecek source this evening as I've probably just cited the wrong page. Miyagawa (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ended up checking pretty much straight away as it was bugging me. I've managed to sort it - basically the text is correct, but I'd put a cite in the wrong place. So in "Concept and development" cite 2a has been moved to the end of the sentence as that is the cite (page 15 of the Nemecek source) which shows that Hernandez was first given the position of tactical officer. For that sentence, 3a is simply citing the full name (which is on page 13, as page 15 only refers to her by her first name). Page 13 specifically lists her as the security chief which is covered by 3b. Phew. I thought I'd properly messed something up then! Miyagawa (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2013 (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.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tasha_Yar/archive1&oldid=1088821699"