Wikipedia

Talk:Kes (Star Trek)/GA1

< Talk:Kes (Star Trek)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by J Milburn in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago106 comments4 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply


Claiming this one now, but will only be able to make some quick initial comments right now. Though Trekkies will hate me for saying it, Voyager is the only series I've watched all the way through... Josh Milburn (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Thank you for reviewing this. I also have only seen Voyager all the way through. It certainly has its own set of problems, but I can't help but enjoy it. I have addressed the points below, but let me know if more revisions are necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "alongside her boyfriend Neelix" Are they an item in the first episode? It may be worth mentioning here that he's not Ocampan.
  • "Michael Westmore created the prosthetic for the Ocampa; Lien no longer had to wear her ear prosthetic after developing an allergy to it in the third season." This comes out of the blue a little. If I am understanding correctly, how about something like "Michael Westmore created the prosthetic for the Ocampa, which consisted of [blah]; Lien, however, stopped wearing her ear prosthetics after developing an allergy to it in the third season."
  • "According to series creator Michael Piller, Kes was created to make the audience empathize with Neelix. The cast and crew questioned how her relationship with Neelix was represented on the show." Similarly, I wonder if these sentences should be conjoined. They're clearly related, but perhaps not as clearly as they could be.
  • The lead seems to repeat information about Kes/Lien leaving the show; I wonder if the mentions could be brought together?

Ok, the lead looks much better. The only odd thing is the mention of "Elogium", which comes out of nowhere. Why are you mentioning that particular episode? Anyway, onto the rest of the article...

  • I included the "Elogium" in the lead because it was a point of significant criticism as represented in the "Critical reception" section. I do understand your point however; would it be better to make the sentence in the lead a little more generic, with something like "Her role in certain episodes have received criticism"? I was uncertain on how to approach this because it a significant part of the "Critical reception" section that I thought it should be somewhere in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Your tenses are a bit all over the place in the first paragraph of the "Television" section. Could I ask you to take another look?
  • I tried to stick with past tense for the events that happen prior to the show's pilot episode. Should it be present tense like the other paragraphs or should some of the stray present tense stuff (like "however, Kes dreams of leaving the Ocampa enclave to explore the galaxy and develop her psionic powers, with which her ancestors were rumored to have far more proficiency") be put into past tense? I just want to make sure before I make any adjustments there. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Ocampa city or Ocampan city?
  • Unfortunately, the show uses both and never really establishes which one is the "correct" form. I used "Ocampa city" because they used "Ocampa" as an adjective at first before changing it over to the "Ocampan" later. I could be misremembering the order, but I do remember the lack of consistency. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I think you'll need to mention that the crews merge, and probably what they do with the Ocampa
  • Added a part about the crews merging. The pilot episode really does not address what happens to the Ocampa. After Janeway orders for the destruction of the Caretaker's array, Voyager leaves the planet, and the Ocampa are presumably still left behind. In the episode, the Caretaker says the Ocampa will run out of supplies in a few years and have to go to the surface, and Janeway says that he should have more faith in them. However, there is not much clarity on what happens to the Ocampa after all these events take place. Aoba47 (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "After discovering that Tanis is collaborating with the Caretaker's first mate, Suspiria, to destroy Voyager, she subdues him with her powers" Who's she? Kes?
  • Who's Tieran?
  • Is Zahir Ocampan? Perhaps specify?
  • "The Doctor helps Kes return to normal temporal sync" Jargon!
  • Ok, the "Year of Hell" stuff is complicated - Kes is providing information about the events of an episode that has yet to air? I think this needs to be explained a little more clearly, and be careful about in-universe out-of-universe mix-ups. You refer to the "Year of Hell" but you're linking to the episode, not an article about the (fictional) year!
  • "her ascension"?
  • Could you specify the authors of the novels?
  • "she was its youngest actor" - That's not true! Naomi Wildman, Icheb... This needs to be better specified.

Stopping there for now. Sorry this is bitty... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Thank you for the comments so far. I have to wrap up a few off-Wikipedia things before I can respond to everything and make the adjustments to the article. I hope that I do not come across as rude with my comments. I just wanted to get your opinion on a few things before I revise the article that way just to make sure I am on the right track. I was on the fence about putting the article up for a GAN (which is why I put it up and took it down a few times). Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "Kolbe interpreted Kes as the alter ego to Neelix" Are those his exact words? I didn't think that's what "alter ego" meant...
  • "the character talk about" Characters?
  • "Alternatively, a darker relationship between the Doctor and Kes was planned for the episode "Darkling". According to writer Joe Menosky, the Doctor's evil alter ego was intended to be "perversely sexual and sadistic" with a "psychosexual" attraction to Kes. Menosky had planned a scene in which the Doctor interacts with holograms of Kes on the holodeck, including performing surgery on one." But none of this happened, right? This should be specified.
  • "to a specific demographic" What was the demographic?
  • The ordering of the final paragraph of "Departure an return" is a little off; could I ask you to take another look?
  • "Other contributors to the publication" Look again - it's not clear what "publication" you're talking about!
  • "a "fairly pat resolution" to" What does pat mean, here?

All in all, not at all bad so far - I'll be back to look at the images and the sources, respond to your comments, and then have another read-through. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Apologies for the recent flurry of edits. While I was collecting the names for the books Kes had appeared in, I noticed that I missed quite a few. That was my mistake, and I should be double-checked that before putting this up for review. Thank you again for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sourcing:

  • Are you actually citing the Worldcat entries, or are you citing the books themselves? If the latter, you should cut out the middle man and actually cite the book. That's surely an acceptable use of a primary source.
  • What makes Trek Today (or is it TrekToday?) a reliable source?
  • I thought there was some editorial oversight on the site, but I cannot find that information anymore. I have removed it as the article should rely more on higher quality sources. Aoba47 (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Have you had a snoop through Google Scholar results?
    • "Kes Ocampa" is cited as an author in a spoof academic paper discussed in this chapter. Funny, but probably shouldn't be included.
    • There may be some interesting discussion of Kes/Neelix here.
    • Some fairly interesting analysis here about the role of Kes in the series.
    • Based on the discussion here, it sounds like Kes is an important feature in the episode "Sacred Ground". Perhaps worth mentioning?
      • "Sacred Ground" is definitely worth mentioned. It is more of a Janeway-focused episode, but a large portion of the story is also about Kes. I cannot believe that I forgot that as "Sacred Ground" is actually one of my favorite episodes from the show. I will add it momentarily, and I will look over briefly over the episodes again to make sure that I did not miss anything else. Apologies again for that. Aoba47 (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • More interesting analysis of the role of Kes's character here.
  • Does Kes maintain an airponics or hydroponics garden? You mention hydroponics in the text, but airponics (which I think is fictional...) in the infobox.

Sorry, I should say: With the extra sources, I'm not demanding any particular change, I'm offering them to you as some sources you may be able to incorporate. If you're having trouble accessing anything, I may be able to help. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Thank you for the review. Apologies for the delay in my response. I admittedly did not go through the scholarly and academic sources as thoroughly as I should. I do have access to more academic databases through my undergrad institute, but it is only when I am on campus unfortunately. For these types of sources, I typically rely on the resource request. I can put requests for the sources there. I will look through the scholarly sources again shortly. Apologies for the quality of the article. It is certainly not my best, and I should have revised it more thoroughly before putting it up for a GAN. I hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I was just looking in as part of the backlog drive and let me just say that if you've only watched Voyager you have so much superior Trek out there for you to partake. No disrespect to Voyager, only respect to TNG and DS9 (and TOS if that's your thing). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
One of these days, I will get around to watching TOS, TNG, and DS9. Voyager certainly has significant flaws, particularly when compared to the previous three, but I can't help but enjoy it (maybe because it is so weird). That and Seven of Nine is one of my favorite characters lol. Whenever I get around to the other shows, I will make sure to contribute something on here for them :). Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Just acknowledging that I've seen that you're ready for another whack. I've just bought a house that needs paint, furniture, and the rest, and I started a new job with a long commute last month, so time's at a bit of a premium at the moment. I promise I won't forget about this! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
No worries. There is no rush. Good luck with the job and that is awesome that you bought a new house. Sounds like everything is going well for you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Have only read the intro, so far, and I think it doesn't stay focused. I just came from overhauling all of Vulcan and what I noticed from cleaning up years of edits is that there is a tendency to go off on tangents. For example, this article is about Kes. However, the first thing in the intro is that it takes off and spends several sentences describing Voyager. The remainder of the intro gets back to Kes, but it jumps around and seems disjointed. A lot of time is spent on critical reaction to Kes and her primary episodes, but not enough on who and what Kes is. StarHOG (Talk) 19:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
OK, having taken a look at the rest of the article, I am thinking it 1) needs to be restructured and 2) is too long. Typically the character bios have the intro and then the next section is the character development. This can be followed by a biography of notable events, and lastly the critical response section. I noticed you have critics' views mixed in to the other sections. The biography section is strangely named "Television, appearances". The picture of brian fuller [IMO] doesn't have a place in the article. Remain focused on what a lay person coming to wikipedia would find relevant if they wanted to know about this Kes character from Star Trek. StarHOG (Talk) 19:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
I respectfully disagree, but I will wait for J Milburn to complete the review. Aoba47 (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
OK, but have a look at articles like Harry Kim, William Riker, and Katheryn Janeway and you'll see the style usually adopted for these articles is Lead - Casting/development - Biography - Critical reception. I see that you have done a ton of work on this article and that is very much appreciated, as has J Milburn, but I caution your statement about waiting for another editor to review; any editor can make any edits at any time. Please be cautious of WP:OWN. StarHOG (Talk) 12:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
I do not appreciate your WP:OWN accusations. @J Milburn: is the one who picked this up for review so that is why I am deferring to his opinion. Your comment (I caution your statement about waiting for another editor to review) does not make sense because I am not waiting for another editor. I am waiting for the editor who is already reviewing this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

(←) To my eyes, the new structure is not obviously better than the old one, and the edits introduced new problems. Given that there are two of us worried about the changes, and following the bold, revert, discuss cycle, I have reverted to the last stable version of the article. StarHOG, perhaps you could list your concerns with the article and we could look into them? Some partial responses to what you've said so far are below. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

  1. Do we have any relevant guidelines for structuring articles on fictional characters? Presumably, we can defer to them to settle the question of section ordering. If not, we could perhaps follow structures used in related featured articles (if any).
  2. Length alone is not a problem in this case, but a lack of focus surely is. There is of course a need to strike a balance between staying focused and providing context for the reader. The article may go too far one way rather than another, but it would be helpful if you could identify the parts that you feel go into unnecessary details/drift too far off topic.
  3. Relatedly: I think I agree with you that the lead is probably a little long at the moment. Perhaps that could be trimmed.
  4. I don't think the picture of Fuller is doing any harm, but I don't think it would be a great loss, either.
  5. I think the "OWN" accusations are out of place - the article is currently going through a good article review, and these reviews are typically conducted by a single editor. In this case, it's me. That certainly doesn't mean that I "own" the article, but it does surely explain why Aoba was keen to hear my response to the new edits. Indeed, this conversation is taking place on the review page, not the article talk page. If you're not familiar with the GAC process, you can read about it here.
  • Thank you for the response. I originally added the Fuller image because he wrote two important Kes episodes ("The Gift" and "Fury"), but I have removed it as it is not entirely necessary. I am very open to hearing about ways to improve the lead as that was something that I was struggling with in particular when writing the article. I have an explanation for the following sentence (Set in the 24th century, the series follows the Starfleet and Maquis crew of the starship USS Voyager who are stranded in the Delta Quadrant, far from the rest of the Federation.) which StarHOG disagreed with it. I think it is important to include a basic summary of the show to help unfamiliar readers understand what is going on and how the character fits into everything. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I have made some edits to hopefully address some of the concerns:
  • I have shortened the lead by removing what I think is trivial. I think it is important to keep the short, one-sentence overview of the show in the lead's first paragraph though to help an unfamiliar reader.
  • I have swapped the "Development" and "Appearances" section per the above concern. I do not believe "Biography" is an appropriate title for this section as that seems to be better for an article on a real person not a fictional character. "Appearances" as a section title has been used for FAs like Allen Walker and is used to reference a character's appearances in different medium. Even the Harry Kim article referenced above uses "Appearances" (so does Chakotay). I originally put the appearances first because I was uncertain if an unfamiliar reader would be confused by all of the production and technical information and I thought it may be helpful to start with the character's storylines. I am fine with doing it the other way, but I just wanted to explain my rationale. I have done an article the other way (Melanie Barnett) so it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility.
  • I have moved the critics' opinions about Kes' powers into the critical reception section to avoid having third-party commentary in the production section. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Aoba47: Thanks for the update. @StarHOG: Is this looking better to you? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Somewhat. I'll start by saying that both of you have alluded to me "accusing" Aoba47 of Ownership, which I never did, I cautioned against it. I'll also say that when someone reverts ALL of an editor's edits in favor of their original article, it lends itself to ownership, and that was done. But moving on, I'd like to say that I try my best to read and edit these articles as if I was a lay person, knowing nothing about the star trek franchise, but I have come to read an article for who knows what reason. Therefore I will point out what I feel are problems:
  • I would push back against this slightly before moving on from it completely. Ownership is a serious issue. Rather than trying to collaborate with me or the article reviewer on this page, you made large changes to the article so it fit what you felt was best, and that itself lends itself to ownership. It would be best to discuss these points here and try to reach a mutual understanding. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • @StarHOG: On "accusations": Yes, fair enough, I accept that no accusation was made - but the language was used, whether as a "caution" or otherwise. It's perhaps not surprising that Aoba objected to that. However, you say "I'll also say that when someone reverts ALL of an editor's edits in favor of their original article": I object to that. It's not my original article at all - I hadn't edited this article until I started the review. My reasons for the reversion were explained and, I believe, reasonable. I think you are wrong to say that this action "lends" itself to ownership, and I note that, "accusation" or not, you're again using the language of ownership. If I seem defensive, that's why. It's regrettable that we have to have this back-and-forth rather than focusing on the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • The line in the lead about the Maquis and starfleet and the delta quandrant - too wordy and too in-universe for someone coming to find out about Kes. Perhaps, "Set in the 24th century, the series follows the crew of the USS Voyager, stranded far from home and struggling to get back to Earth."
  • Additionally, too much detail is gone into in the second paragraph that does not help a reader understand who or what Kes is, just references strange occurances to her character that are detailed better in lower sections. This includes the "elogium" comments in the third paragraph, since that paragraph already opens with critics panning the character. I tried hard to trim this in my reverted version.
  • I included this information because according to Wikipedia:Lead, the lead section should be an accessible overview of the article as a whole so I tried to include information from each section. I have tried to cut back on it per your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • These Star Trek articles go to great lengths to separate non-canon information out from what is unequivocally "true". To have a section entitled "Appearances" and a sub section of "television" simply doesn't make sense, there are no other appearances of this character other than this show. Yes, I too do not favor "biography" of a fictional character, but some other wording needs to be found here. Biography is used on other voyager character articles and that is why I suggested it.
  • @StarHOG: Appearances is used in the Harry Kim and Chakotay articles (as I have already pointed out above) so that is not true. I reference those two articles since they both passed GANs as opposed to the other Voyager character articles. The character does appear in literature (both canonical and non-canonical) so she does not appear only in television. Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Literature and merchandise - This needs to stand out as non-canonical, which is why I headed it that way in my edit. I don't know of any fan films featuring Kes, but this category needs to be inclusive of a lot of things other than "literature". I had deleted the action figure line from my edit because, dear lord, every character in star trek has an action figure - this is NOT notable for a wikipedia article. StarHOG (Talk) 15:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@J Milburn:@StarHOG: I have attempted to address the above points. Please let me know if there is anything that requires revision. Aoba47 (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Aoba47, please do not place your comments inside of my posting, breaking up what I said (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments).
  • Ownership is a serious issue, and, again, I never accused you of it. After I clarified that, I tried to "move on". If you feel that I've violated a rule, please get a wiki admin involved, otherwise I'm done discussing it.
  • "Biography" is used in the Tom Paris article, so my statement is far from "not true". I also stated that I don't like the use of biography for fictional characters, but you seem to want to punish me for using the term. I noticed on some other pages "Character biography"; could that be a better term?
  • There is no canonical literature. Paramount's website is quite specific that canonical material is what has appeared on screen released by paramount. StarHOG (Talk) 17:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • @StarHOG: I responded that way to try and make it clear which points I was addressing. I was not editing your comments. I am genuinely trying to be as collaborative as possible so I do not appreciate that accusation either. I have no interest in contacting an administrator, and I see no reason on why that had to be brought up at all. I put this up for a GAN to try and get feedback on how to improve the article so again I am genuinely trying to have a discussion here. You made a blanket statement that biography is used for other Voyager articles and I pointed out the Harry Kim and Chakotay articles to show that none all of the Voyager articles use this terminology.
  • I respectfully disagree about the "Character biography" suggestion. Is there any particular reason why that would be a better term? I think "Appearances" is clearer because it references her appearances in the television show and the related literature. I am not "punishing" you for using the term "biography". I am simply disagreeing with you and explaining my rationale. Saying that I am "punishing" you is a rather extreme way to put it. As for the issue of canon, from what I can see, Mosaic and Pathways were considered canon at the time of their publication. After Jeri Taylor left the show, a lot of the information was contradicted, but I have included a source that supports that these two books were canon. I have added a part in the prose to clarify what is cannon and not cannon. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • This portion of StarTrek.com refers to Mosaic and Pathways as canon and are exceptions to the rule. It is straight from the official website. Aoba47 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I suggested "Character biography" but again, I just put it out there. The section is the story of the character, "appearances" is not strong enough. Maybe "biography" is too strong for a fictional character. We need to find a term that is more suitable (and probably try to apply it across all the Trek character articles). You don't need to "respectably disagree", we're having a discussion, let's talk about it and try to reach a consensus. Canon has changed dramatically over the years. That article is from 2000. The current standard is only what has been seen on screen. We need to present things as they are now, not what they once were. Agreed? StarHOG (Talk) 22:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • @StarHOG: There are many many instances of Wikipedia articles using "Appearances" to refer to these kinds of sections. Here are Star Trek articles that use this phrasing (Janice Rand, Ro Laren, Christine Chapel, Vic Fontaine, Ezri Dax, Tasha Yar, and Khan Noonien Singh). The Signh article even puts the "Appearances" section before the "Development" section as I had done previously. I do not understand your aversion to "Appearances"; it seems to be the norm for these kinds of articles, and I think it is very descriptive and direct as it covers everything that the character makes "appearances" in. I do not understand why "Character biography" is better than "Appearances". Could you give me a reason for it? Pinging @J Milburn: for his perspective on this. Also, I can disagree with someone while still having a discussion with them. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
  • I think it would be best to put the question of whether or not Mosaic/Pathways is canon in a note. It would address that these books were once considered canon and no longer appear to be so. I think it is best to address the full nuance of the situation. I will add the note momentarily. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I have added the note on the matter. Since we cannot say for certain either way (there are sources that say one and the other, and a press release/notice has not been put out about these exact two books), I think it is best to include information for both. Aoba47 (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think there could be a better term than "appearances" or "biography" just not sure what that term is. Just because something was canon in 2000 doesn't mean it is in a grey area. It is now NOT cannon. Although bleeding was once a recommended cure for plague, I'm not going to include it as a possible cure on the plague page because it was once considered a cure. Literature is not accepted as canon right now. If it changes again, we change the article. If you want to make a general statement under Non-Canon that the history of what is and what is not has changed over the years, that is OK, too. StarHOG (Talk) 14:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think you are comparing apples and oranges with the bleeding comparisons. I have moved the two books under the non-canonical appearances section and added a note to say that it was once considered canon but does not appear to be so anymore. That should cover it sufficiently. Aoba47 (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Why is "appearances" not an appropriate term for this section? I do not understand your objection that it is "not strong enough". Again, these sections cover the character's appearances in these different medium so it seems rather self-explanatory, and it is used throughout good articles on Star Trek characters. If you are so against "appearances" though, I have seen other words for these types of sections like "Storylines" and "Role". However, I have primarily seen "appearances" in featured and good articles on fictional characters. Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just looked at the article and it is looking so much better. I do think the "departure" section should come after the "appearances" section, though. It seems like we are getting rid of her before we've explained her role. StarHOG (Talk) 14:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • @StarHOG: I disagree. The information about her departure and return strictly deals with behind-the-scenes/production information (i.e. the reason why Lien was fired to make room for Ryan, the writing and production process for "The Gift" and "Fury"). It does not make sense to me to separate production information in two different parts of the article. That's why I put all of the storyline information first so the reader can really understand Kes' role in Star Trek before getting into the more technical/production side of things. But, again, I do not see the value of separating production information into two very different areas in the article as I think that would be more confusing. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Please stop pinging me when you leave a note here. I'm already following this discussion on my watch list. StarHOG (Talk) 15:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for that. Will do. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Aoba, StarHOG: Please let me know if/when you've reached an equilibrium, and I can take another look at the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article looks pretty good. It strongly resembles my initial overhaul. I think it deserves a look. StarHOG (Talk) 15:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok, looking through again, and editing as I go.

  • I think a line or two about scholarly views of Kes would be a great addition to the final paragraph of the lead. If we have any, that is. (Did you add anything from that batch of papers I found above, by the way?)
  • I believe that I have added everything I could find from the scholarly sources above. I have added a sentence to the lead about the scholarly analysis. Please let me know if further revision is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Not a big deal for GAC purposes, but I wonder if it's worth revisiting the third paragraph of the creation section? It feels a little out-of-order.
  • "Phillips asked writers to provide closure for the couple following their break-up.[28] He said the end of their relationship was "muddy" because it occurred while Kes was possessed by Tiernan" Ok, good, but this hasn't been introduced yet.
  • "Berman discussed the couple during a 1997 interview, saying: "There was a relationship with Neelix that didn't work out that well."[30]" Is this adding anything?
  • To the best of my knowledge, it was more of an off-hand comment that was not fully explained or discussed further. It seems that the writers and producers just wanted to bury the entire relationship and move forward with the show (which I am not surprised by since several elements from the original three seasons like the Kazon were completely dropped in later seasons). Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "Since B'Elanna Torres had few scenes with Kes, the character's actor Roxann Dawson requested for further interaction between the two.[33]" Interesting, but a bit tacked-on. Again, don't worry for GAC purposes, but if you're looking towards FAC...
  • That is a good point. I had a similar concern about it. I have tried to adjust the prose somewhat to make it have a clear transition from one idea to the next, but let me know what you think. I do not have any current plans to bring this article through the FAC process. I would imagine that it would take quite a bit of revision to get it up to that level, but I might go through the article several times in the future to try for that. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • And another thought in case you're looking towards FAC: The critical reception section is a bit quote-farm-y, but I do like the way you've split it thematically. (I'd also think about splitting up critical reception and scholarly analysis - it's weird having blogs and listicals next to peer-reviewed research, though I accept that there's something of a continuum rather than a bright line...)
  • That is also a good point. I am going to look through that section momentarily to see how I could separate the scholarly and more popular sources because it would be better if there was a stronger separation. While I am doing that, I will also try to paraphrase some of the quotes. I am quite guilty of over-quoting at times. I will put up a response here when I am done with these edits. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is looking good. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Whew! We missed each other. I made some small changes right in the middle of a string of Aoba47's edits without even knowing it! Maybe you should use the {{in use}} banner when working on the article for a long period. StarHOG (Talk) 21:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for that. I had thought my responses to the comments above were a clear enough indicator that I was working on the article. I saw no reason in using the "in use" banner when I was trying to complete my edits in one sitting. Thank you for your edits and advice. Aoba47 (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok - I've made a last few edits, and I'm happy. If you're both happy, I'm willing to go ahead and promote. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Thank you for the response. And it is probably best to wait a respectable amount of time to allow StarHOG the opportunity to respond further. Thank you for your help with the review. Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm good! Thanks. StarHOG (Talk) 19:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ok, great, I'm going to promote now. A slightly complicated review, but the article's looking really good now. Great work everyone. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kes_(Star_Trek)/GA1&oldid=953633394"