Talk:Katherine Pulaski/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 05:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Resolved

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Images

Resolved

• OK. Licensing and rationale check out. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Resolved

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved

• WP:OVERLINK: MD, fictional character, science fiction television. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Removed. Miyagawa (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Starfleet starship USS Enterprise-D
  • Didn't you use the "Federation starship Enterprise-D" in other articles? Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I've swapped it out with Federation instead. Miyagawa (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Muldaur had appeared twice in Star Trek: The Original Series as different characters in the episodes "Return to Tomorrow" and "Is There in Truth No Beauty?",
  • There are several reasons to avoid using the comma here; the most persuasive is the fact that using three punctuation marks in a row looks strange. Instead of arguing over different style guides and their recommendations, it's best to just end the sentence without a comma and start a new one with "She later worked with series creator Gene Roddenberry on a pilot for the series Planet Earth." Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Reviewers of Pulaski were critical of her behaviour
  • Instead of speaking generally here, just point to specifics. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• and compared her to Dr. Leonard McCoy from The Original Series.
  • It's more helpful to explain why they compared her to Bones than to assert that they did. It gives the reader more information. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Episodes such as "Unnatural Selection" which featured Pulaski in a leading role have divided opinions.
  • Again, why were opinions divided? Just touch very briefly rather than speaking so generally. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Her relationships with Lt. Commmander Data have been highlighted, but with the android taking the role of Spock.
  • Very interesting and important, but reword this to make it clear what you mean. For example, briefly touch upon the similarities between the Bones and Spock analogy. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Other considerations of that partnership led to speculations on 'slavery' due to the android's lack of emotions; while Pulaski has been compared to Friedrich Nietzsche in her opinions about Data.
  • Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. Please review the source and reword. Why the speculations (what does it mean) and how was she compared to Nietzsche? Specify. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I've dropped that sentence - both were one off mentions by reviewers and in hindsight not worthy of inclusion in the lead. Miyagawa (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Miyagawa: On a final read, I've chosen to remove the anecdote about her name change from the lead. Per the sources, it's not important and shouldn't be in the lead. Also, as a previous editor has noted in the above section on the talk page, we don't even have enough information to discuss it.[1] Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• @Miyagawa: In the lead it says, "Muldaur's favourite episode in her role as Pulaski was 'Elementary, Dear Data'". Does this appear in the body of the article? Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note, I've temporarily removed it from the lead. I think it should go in the body of the article. The source doesn't actually say it's her fave episode, although that's a somewhat fair paraphrase (but not one I would use). The source says it's an episode that she thinks "worked best".[2] Try to revisit the source and then add it back to the body, and maybe the lead. It would help greatly if you could find other supporting sources for this statement as well, just to make sure it is indeed her "fave" ep. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Miyagawa: I think the summary of the criticism in the lead needs a rewrite. Simply writing "Reviewers criticized Pulaski's behaviour, describing her as annoying" is not helpful. As readers, we want to know why she is annoying. I'll take a stab at it, and you can join in. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• @Miyagawa: I have further copyedited the lead. Please review. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for those edits - I think the lead looks much better for it. Miyagawa (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• @Miyagawa: I just reread the lead and moved some content around. I have tried to read as if I didn't know anything about the topic (not easy to do, which is why I avoided it for several days). When I did, I realized that the lead doesn't give a good general impression of what she did and what she accomplished. Think about adding two sentences to the first paragraph about the major accomplishments of her character as mentioned in the appearances section. For example, she operated on Picard, etc. Viriditas (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added a couple of lines based on her Appearances to the end of the first paragraph and moved the line from the end of the first to the end of the second. I also noticed a strange edit in the middle of one of the paragraphs in appearances and removed it. Miyagawa (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I added a bit more. The lead is looking good. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Concept and development

Resolved

• Muldaur had previously played the parts of two separate characters (also doctors) in separate episodes of the The Original Series
  • You italicize The Original Series throughout the article except for here. Did you forget? Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, forgot! Miyagawa (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Dr. Miranda Jones in "Is There in Truth No Beauty?".
  • The period is not required because the sentence ends with a title that already has punctuation. Remove it. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Done - wasn't sure as the punctuation formed part of an episode title. Miyagawa (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• After this she worked with the creator of Star Trek..
  • "This" is too informal. Reword. Try, "Several years later" or something like that. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• after getting to know him and his wife
  • That's a cute Easter egg, but linking wife with no explicit mention of her name isn't best practice. Link to her name, not the word "wife". Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• As with her TOS appearances
  • If you're going to use TOS, then prompt the reader with parentheses after the first full usage of the term. Also, decide on whether you will use it throughout the article, because right now, you're using both. Whatever you do, be consistent. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I'll switch to the full The Original Series. Miyagawa (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• The producers were unaware of her previous involvement in those Roddenberry series
  • Reword please. Be specific. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• and proposed that she should take the part without that knowledge
  • Redundant. You just said they weren't aware of it. Why would you say it again in the same sentence? Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Removed. Miyagawa (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• which she described as "I thought the whole thing just began very exciting...
  • That's a poor use of a quote. "Which she described as 'I thought the whole thing'" doesn't work. Try to integrate a quote into a sentence; in other words, quote efficiently and effectively. There are many ways to do this. One way is to do it like this: "She reviewed 15 VHS cassettes containing the first season, which she described as "very exciting". Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I've changed it to something similar. Miyagawa (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• The vacancy on the main cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation was caused by the departure of Gates McFadden as Dr. Beverly Crusher.
  • It's not clear why this is in the second paragraph when you previously talk about her audition and preparation for the role. Shouldn't the vacancy precede that? Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I've swapped around the first two paragraphs to improve the flow. Miyagawa (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Executive producer Rick Berman later said that "There were those who believed at the end of the first season...
  • Know when to quote and when to paraphrase. This really isn't the best fit for a quote and would work much better as a paraphrase. Your choice, of course. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I've redrafted into a paraphrase. Miyagawa (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Roddenberry decided to write Crusher out rather than killing the character in order to allow for McFadden's return in the future.
  • When you see "in order to" in the body of an article, it's usually (9 times out of 10) best to remove it. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Removed. Miyagawa (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Miyagawa: There's still problems with this section. I made a large copyedit to fix the structural narrative.[3] Please review and see if you can't also tighten it up a bit. Notice, for example, how I made the chronology flow naturally: Roddenberry drops McFadden > Berman disagrees > Roddenberry writes her out > McFadden departs > New vacancy > Producers contact Muldaur. Do you see how the narrative now flows logically as opposed to before? See if you can't re-read this section and do the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks - I've copyedited it for flow, and moved some of the wikilinks further up in the sequence (as sections were moved around). Miyagawa (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Miyagawa: Made additional copyedits to this section and removed the bit about her not auditioning for TOS (that came out of nowhere with no explanation), made the full usage of TOS consistent (you were using both ST:TOS and just TOS, not consistent), and removed the quote which had little to do with the character, but retained the "hard work" part, which is relevant. Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• This section is done, unless there are other concerns. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Appearances

Resolved

• The structure and grouping in this episode isn't really clear. Is it just a chronological retelling of her major appearances? Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That's right - I've been following this pattern on the character descriptions after testing it at FA with Tasha Yar. Miyagawa (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• However, the transporter would later save Pulaski's life in "Unnatural Selection" after she was infected with a disease that rapidly aged her which originated from the planet Gagarin IV. She manages to work out a way to remove the infection using the transporters, and is returned to her previous appearance.
  • Instead of starting a new paragraph with this, group it with the transporter information at the end of the previous paragraph; you could make a separate paragraph here.
    • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• @Miyagawa:. I've copyedited this section; please review. Can you move the "Pen Pals" detail from novels to appearances, and expand upon it if necessary? Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've made a couple of minor copyedits (I initially changed immigrate to emigrate, but after looking it up properly, I thought migrate was more appropriate). I've moved the "Pen Pals" information to the section, slotting it into the medical-centric paragraph (that's the correct order of episodes, and the subject matter fits quite nicely). Miyagawa (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reception and commentary

Resolved

• In their 1998 book, Star Trek 101
  • Please review the formatting in this section. You forgot to italicize the book title. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Her relationship with Data was further considered in the book Enterprise Zones: Critical Positions on Star Trek, where she is described as "challenging Data in terms of his machine nature" in "The Child", and suggesting that his emotionless state is comparative to slavery and referencing Maya Angelou's 1969 work I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.
  • That's a mouthful! How about splitting that up and clarifying the connections? For example, how does Angelou's book fit in here? Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I've split up and clarified that the reference was in the episode itself. Miyagawa (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Pulaski was also shown as demonstrating the Star Trek opinion on cloning in the episode "Up The Long Ladder" according the book Deep Space and Sacred Time: Star Trek in the American Mythos, as after the theft of both hers and Riker's genetic material by colonists in order to produce new clones to increase their population, the duo destroy the incubation chambers "as if the they were truly demonic abominations".
  • Another mouthful! I only understand this because I know the topic, but I'm afraid other readers will not. What is the "Start Trek opinion" on cloning? You're also missing the word "to" here: "according the book Deep Space..." Split these sentences up and explain them to the reader. You explain the "opinion" in so many words at the end of the section, but gently introduce a summary of it in the beginning. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Done - with the addition of a couple of new sources. Miyagawa (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Miyagawa:. We're almost done, but I'm having trouble with this section. You write:

Her relationship with Data was further considered in the book Enterprise Zones: Critical Positions on Star Trek

• I would like to note the author here, as there appear to be many. Also, I'm not exactly sure what this means:

she is described as "challenging Data in terms of his machine nature" in "The Child".

• What is the nature of this challenge? You also write:

it was suggested that his emotionless state is comparative to slavery due to the reference in the episode to Maya Angelou's 1969 work I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.

• How is it comparable? Describe what you mean. Also:

DeCandido considered the same event in "The Child" and instead compared it to the relationship between Spock and McCoy from The Original Series.

• I'm not sure what event you mean. Try to unify this paragraph so it makes sense. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note, I tried to resolve this. See the closing comments. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

See also

Resolved

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Notes

Resolved

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Resolved

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

External links

Resolved

• No link to startrek.com? Viriditas (talk)
  • Added! Miyagawa (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Lead: copyedits needed (see above)

   Concept and development: copyedits needed (see above)

   Reception and commentary: copyedits needed (see above)

   Appearances: copyedits needed (see above)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   WP:OVERLINK: lead

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Minor issues. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

   So, those minor issues turned into major issues once my eyes were opened to what was really going on here. Let's face it, this article wasn't ready for GA; I thought a few minor changes could salvage it, but I was wrong. On the other hand, the nominator saw the same problems as I did and made an excellent effort to fix them. I helped with copyedting, but I did more work than I wanted to do. To pass this article, I removed material that deviated from the topic or duplicated material found in the appearances sections. In some cases, I found that the wrong quote or source was listed and I fixed that as well. If the nominator wants to add the cloning material back, it should attempt to 1) stay on the topic of Pulaski and her opinions about cloning, and 2) refrain from duplicating the appearance section. The previous version did both, and that didn't work. If you're going to put in the reception section, then cite a notable opinion about the cloning. The previous version didn't do this and merely repeated the appearance material. With that material removed, I'm passing it in its current form. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)