Talk:In the Hands of the Prophets/GA1
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Viriditas in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 10:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Lead
edit
Resolved- In the Hands of the Prophets" is the twentieth and final episode of the first season of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and originally aired in broadcast syndication within the United States on June 20, 1993.
- It helps to break this up into two sentences: "In the Hands of the Prophets is the twentieth and final episode of the first season of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. It originally aired in broadcast syndication within the United States on June 20, 1993." Also, I suggest linking to science fiction on television in the words "science fiction television". Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Done (both). Miyagawa (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- It helps to break this up into two sentences: "In the Hands of the Prophets is the twentieth and final episode of the first season of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. It originally aired in broadcast syndication within the United States on June 20, 1993." Also, I suggest linking to science fiction on television in the words "science fiction television". Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- It originally aired in broadcast syndication within the United States on June 20, 1993.
- I think you clarified this a few reviews ago, but I don't remember what you said. Please refresh my memory: is it necessary to say it was broadcast within the US after we already established it's an American show? Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it's worth dropping - I've removed it. The only time it'll apply for Star Trek is the end of the first season of Voyager which actually aired in the UK first (the UK considers it part of season one, but the US places those episodes at the start of season two). Miyagawa (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think you clarified this a few reviews ago, but I don't remember what you said. Please refresh my memory: is it necessary to say it was broadcast within the US after we already established it's an American show? Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- the series follows the adventures of the crew of the Starfleet-managed Bajoran space station Deep Space Nine
- Too many links. You don't need a link to "space station" here because the subsequent link goes to a space station where that link is found in the first sentence. Also, is the phrase "follows the adventures of the crew of the Starfleet-managed Bajoran space station", correct? I'm not saying it is wrong, but I would like clarification on this. As you well know, this particular series breaks out of the mold of just following the adventures of the crew of Starfleet. We follow the adventures of Founders, Bajorans, Ferengi Trill, Cardassians, Klingons, Maqui, Jem'Hadar, Federation citizens, etc. Keep in mind that one of the reasons so many of the stories have nothing to do with Starfleet is because DS9 is supposed to be 52 light years from Earth. Also, while Starfleet commands the station, it is jointly managed with the Bajorans. Saying it is managed just by Starfleet seems to be an error, but I could be splitting hairs. Not a big deal, but let me know what you think. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree - it doesn't quite fit. I've redrafted it to "the series follows the adventures of those on-board the space station Deep Space Nine, located near a stable wormhole between the Alpha and Gamma quadrants." Miyagawa (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Too many links. You don't need a link to "space station" here because the subsequent link goes to a space station where that link is found in the first sentence. Also, is the phrase "follows the adventures of the crew of the Starfleet-managed Bajoran space station", correct? I'm not saying it is wrong, but I would like clarification on this. As you well know, this particular series breaks out of the mold of just following the adventures of the crew of Starfleet. We follow the adventures of Founders, Bajorans, Ferengi Trill, Cardassians, Klingons, Maqui, Jem'Hadar, Federation citizens, etc. Keep in mind that one of the reasons so many of the stories have nothing to do with Starfleet is because DS9 is supposed to be 52 light years from Earth. Also, while Starfleet commands the station, it is jointly managed with the Bajorans. Saying it is managed just by Starfleet seems to be an error, but I could be splitting hairs. Not a big deal, but let me know what you think. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've made some copyedits. Please feel free to revert or change anything you want. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've also posted a query about the term "bookend" (and its ambiguity) in the criteria section. It's somewhat of a nitpick, but we should strive to eliminate ambiguity and it caught my eye. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- As an experiment, I converted the four paragraph style into two. If you don't like that, change it to your preferred version. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I like it, it works here because of the size of the final lead paragraph. I don't think it'll work in every case as I just tried it on another episode article and it just looked odd because it made the first paragraph about twice the size of the second paragraph. But that one was unique as there wasn't a great deal of production information for that. But here it works. Miyagawa (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- As an experiment, I converted the four paragraph style into two. If you don't like that, change it to your preferred version. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've also posted a query about the term "bookend" (and its ambiguity) in the criteria section. It's somewhat of a nitpick, but we should strive to eliminate ambiguity and it caught my eye. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Plot
edit Resolved- The plot section is pretty rough and does a poor job connecting Neela to the scheme. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've done a bit of a touch up and made it clear that Winn and Neela were working together. Miyagawa (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- It would also help to describe the dispute over the wormhole aliens in the beginning, as the first paragraph doesn't make this clear. Perahps go into this in one or two sentences, explaining some of the background abut how the Bajorans believe their "Prophets" live in the wormhole, and why Keiko thinks they are best described as alien lifeforms. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've added two sentences to give some background in that area. Miyagawa (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, good work. I merged the two sentences and made some additional copyedits. Please review. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've added two sentences to give some background in that area. Miyagawa (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- It would also help to describe the dispute over the wormhole aliens in the beginning, as the first paragraph doesn't make this clear. Perahps go into this in one or two sentences, explaining some of the background abut how the Bajorans believe their "Prophets" live in the wormhole, and why Keiko thinks they are best described as alien lifeforms. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've done a bit of a touch up and made it clear that Winn and Neela were working together. Miyagawa (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Copyedits complete. I'm not happy with the way the last sentence is worded about the apology, but there's only so much I can do. If you think you can improve it, please do so. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've tried some new wording - it's a little bit less "he said, she said" in structure. Miyagawa (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Production
edit Resolved- Remember, if you are going to use the month, day, and year format, you need to use a comma after the year as well as after the day. I realize you aren't used to that format. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I fixed the one in reception. Miyagawa (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Prior to the scripting of "In the Hands of the Prophets", a crossover episode was considered with the crew of the Enterprise from Star Trek: The Next Generation. However, this idea was dropped in favor of an episode which would end the season on a similar religious note as seen in the series premiere, "Emissary".
- Who was it exactly that considered the crossover episode, and who was it exactly that dropped the idea? A writer, the producer, who? I want to mention them in this sentence like this: "Before scripting "In the Hands of the Prophets", [Insert Name Here] considered a crossover episode with the crew of the Enterprise from Star Trek: The Next Generation. However, [Insert Name Here] dropped this idea in favor of an episode to end the season on a similar religious note as "Emissary", the series premiere." Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ira Steven Behr credited this as setting a challenge for the writing team which improved the episode...
- What does "this" refer to here? Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Copyedits complete, but I would be very happy if you would attempt to address the issues in this section. If you can't, that's fine. Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Themes
edit Resolved- "In the Hands of the Prophets" was the first episode in the series to look at the conflicts between elements of the Bajoran religion and the non-religious Starfleet
- I don't know if that is phrased correctly. There are religious aliens who are members of Starfleet, for example, Worf. So, you don't become non-religious when you join Starfleet. Would it be more accurate to call Starfleet "secular" here? Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is far more accurate. I've inserted that and linked it. Miyagawa (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if that is phrased correctly. There are religious aliens who are members of Starfleet, for example, Worf. So, you don't become non-religious when you join Starfleet. Would it be more accurate to call Starfleet "secular" here? Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Copyedits complete. You may want to review my changes. Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Note, I had to go back and make some changes to the text-source integrity in this section (and its corresponding content in the lead section), particularly in regards to Erdmann & Block 2000. The material you cited was slightly different in tone and context from the source material. Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Reception and home media release
edit Resolved- Green thought that although it was possibly influenced by the Scopes Trial in 1925, it had been predictive of the issues with the teachings of the theory of evolution which have been opposed by Creationists.
- I'm not sure that's an accurate paraphrase. Green said, "On the surface, this is a no-holds-barred story about the hypocrisy of religious leaders which seems less influenced by the Scopes Trial than by contemporary creationist politicians."[1] Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Due to the problems with the paraphrase, I've just added the full quote. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's an accurate paraphrase. Green said, "On the surface, this is a no-holds-barred story about the hypocrisy of religious leaders which seems less influenced by the Scopes Trial than by contemporary creationist politicians."[1] Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Criteria
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- Note, the use of the word "bookend" in this article might be problematic. I am curious what Altman; Gross (1994): p. 43 actually says, because I believe the term "bookend episode" and the phrase "The episode...was created as a bookend to the season" could cause some confusion. Personally, I "get" that you are trying to say that the religious theme was "bookended" by the two episodes, but I'm curious what Altman actually says in his book. On the other hand, the technical term "bookend episode" has an altogether different meaning. Could you look at the source and see what it says? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that was a borrowed source and I don't have easy access to it. However, since I wrote the article, Tor.com has started doing DS9 reviews and last month it put up a review of this article in which it refers to the same bookending between this and "Emissary". I'll jostle the Altmand and Gross cite to just cover the alternative plot part and add the tor cite in to cover the bookmark bit. I'll also have a go at re-wording it to see if I can avoid the phrase bookmark. Miyagawa (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- That would help! Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I just realised I said I'd do that, and then didn't do that. So its now done! "Bookend" is no longer mentioned. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- That would help! Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that was a borrowed source and I don't have easy access to it. However, since I wrote the article, Tor.com has started doing DS9 reviews and last month it put up a review of this article in which it refers to the same bookending between this and "Emissary". I'll jostle the Altmand and Gross cite to just cover the alternative plot part and add the tor cite in to cover the bookmark bit. I'll also have a go at re-wording it to see if I can avoid the phrase bookmark. Miyagawa (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note, the use of the word "bookend" in this article might be problematic. I am curious what Altman; Gross (1994): p. 43 actually says, because I believe the term "bookend episode" and the phrase "The episode...was created as a bookend to the season" could cause some confusion. Personally, I "get" that you are trying to say that the religious theme was "bookended" by the two episodes, but I'm curious what Altman actually says in his book. On the other hand, the technical term "bookend episode" has an altogether different meaning. Could you look at the source and see what it says? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Can we use either the non-free File:Winn Adami.jpg and/or the free images of File:Louise Fletcher cropp.jpg and File:Rosalind_Chao_in_2005.jpg in this article?
- I've added the Louise Fletcher image - I hadn't realised there was a cropped version. I would have used the Winn Adami image, but that was actually her in the Kai costume rather than the Vedek version. Miyagawa (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've added the Louise Fletcher image - I hadn't realised there was a cropped version. I would have used the Winn Adami image, but that was actually her in the Kai costume rather than the Vedek version. Miyagawa (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can we use either the non-free File:Winn Adami.jpg and/or the free images of File:Louise Fletcher cropp.jpg and File:Rosalind_Chao_in_2005.jpg in this article?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Mostly prose issues. I identified at least two explicit text-source integrity issues in Green 2012 and Erdmann & Block 2000, which I have corrected. Please review these changes. Currently, I believe the article meets the criteria. Viriditas (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
