Wikipedia

Talk:Star Trek: Discovery season 3/GA1

< Talk:Star Trek: Discovery season 3
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Adamstom.97 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago82 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 11:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply


Hey there, Adamstom.97! I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be your reviewer for this nomination. I see you've already gotten the previous two seasons of this show to GA status; nice work! Let's see if you can do it again. I'll be looking forward to working with you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Episodes

edit

Some episode plot summaries are very close to the 200 word limit at MOS:TVPLOT, so just barely compliant. Other than that, the prose is well written and concise, so nothing much else to comment on.

Cast and characters

edit
  • Is Trekcore reliable? They do have one editor on their team, but I cannot find any editorial policy. I assume you are better acquainted with the source in question, and could fill me in here. Also, the article contains quotes from Averbach-Katz himself stating that he played a certain role, but I'd prefer a secondary source about Averbach-Katz, instead of one from him.
  • Similarly, the Trekcore citation for Cheesman and Sharma's roles might be unreliable. I assume the author may have gotten these names from the credits, but better to be safe here.
  • Tag the 11th reference's url-status as dead.

Production

edit

Development

edit
  • citing the positive fan response to that premiere as well as increased subscribers - Minor rewording: "citing the positive fan response to the premiere as well as the increased subscription count"
  • The source (Variety) does not state that Paradise was a writer in the second season.
  • Add a time-stamp to the Hollywood Reporter reference
  • The Trekcore reference here is fine, as it is an interview with verified show-runners.

Writing

edit
  • Lipppolt and Kim are not fully cited in the source (trekmovie.com)
  • Link Secret Hideout.
  • Astrophysicist Erin Macdonald and biologist Mohamed Noor consulted on the season - Using the word "consult" here feels off. Maybe replace with "offered their expertise on"
    • I believe this is the correct word to use as our sources refer to them as "science consultants" and I believe "technical consultant" is the official on screen credit. "offered their expertise" also sounds like they volunteered their time for free which I don't believe is accurate. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • frequent Star Trek linguist Marc Okrand who helped develop the season's alien languages, such as Kelpien - link to constructed language under the word "develop".
  • Paradise revealed at the end of January 2020 that the script for the season finale had been completed - The source does not say this. It says that she tweeted an image with the text "end of season three", which Daily Star Trek News interpreted as the end of filming. I'll also voice my concern about this source, as it only has one editor, and no editorial policy.
  • Paradise said the season's main theme was the importance of connections - What types of connections? E.g. familial, cultural, as she described in the second source.
  • by taking the character far away from that end goal. - Possibly rewrite this to say "starting far away from..." to give more precise context for readers.
  • I feel like a large part of this paragraph that recounts story events could be shortened, as not everything there is necessary to explain the writing decisions in the folowing sentence.
    • While I agree that we want to avoid just re-stating plot info that is already in the episodes section, it is useful to discuss the overall structure of the season in the writing section, especially when trying to explain what the main character arcs are over the course of the season. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Kurtzman explained that a planned spin-off series to star Michelle Yeoh as Philippa Georgiou was not expected to be made until after the third season of Discovery was completed - I cannot find this anywhere in the source. This is however noted in the next source "The spin-off wouldn’t happen until after [season 3]", though said by Kadin, not Kurtzman.
  • "timey-wimey solution" - I know that this is in quotes, but what does this actually mean? What would the reader gain from this information?
    • I think it is useful insight into the decision making process here even if it may be unclear what exactly it means. I guess, it is an intentionally vague description that I wouldn't want to try and interpret. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Kurtzman said it would not but there would be references to previous Star Trek series - Put comma before "but"
  • the Qowat Milat, a sect of Romulan warrior nuns that were introduced in Picard. - The source doesn't state when they were introduced.

Casting

edit
  • their appearance is changed to look like different species - In-universe alien species. This wording doesn't cause potential confusion for readers when they then read the next sentence. Perhaps also list to list of Star Trek aliens.
  • her role as Burnham's mother Gabrielle from the second season - Comma before and after Gabrielle (unless Burnham specifically has two or more mothers)
  • archival recording - Might be better phrased as "archived recording"
  • They are 40 inches (1.0 m) long and weigh 18 pounds (8.2 kg). - This information could be better introduced: "The cats were chosen for their big size, as Paradise said [...]." You could also put "Having two cats on set..." in its own sentence.
  • Link non-binary gender
  • I'd rewrite the last sentences in this section because the long run-on sentences in combination with awkward wording make it difficult to read. My suggestion:
    • "Other characters in the show initially address them as a woman because of Adira's wariness of being open about their identity. Del Barrio wanted this to mirror their own experiences in life, as they were not out to their family yet. It wasn't until they came out to their family ahead of their casting announcement that this was reflected in the show's writing."

Design

edit
  • Maybe provide some images of designs in this section (if they are free of course, or if you can find a fair-use reason for using them)
    • I've looked for some good free images to use for this section but wasn't having luck, so I decided to just stick with the ones that we have in the article for other sections. If you think it is necessary I could come up with some non-free ones that are supported by the content for fair-use, but I was avoiding doing that since nothing was jumping out at me while I was expanding the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • The first sentence is rather long. Maybe remove some of the information there. For example, DOT-7 robots are not mentioned anywhere else in the article.
  • despite having no science-fiction experience - Rewrite as: "no experience with science fiction". Also move it after the "because of his..." sentence.
  • nanobots that could react to the thoughts of users to form into different items - The word "form" is usually transitive. Perhaps replace it with "transform". Also, I feel like "users' thoughts" sounds better here, but that's up to you.
  • Other new Starfleet ships designed for the season include - The extra information should be provided as notes instead of written in parentheses, as it is quite lengthy here (e.g. with the efn template)
    • I have adjusted this to not use parentheses. I would prefer not to use notes because that would just make this a list of ship names which feels too trivial to me. The combination of new ship/class names and the explanations for them is what I felt made this noteworthy for inclusion. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • "No Sew" - should this be capitalised like this?
  • The uniforms are mostly gray, with divisions represented - "division" can mean several things. Might want to specify that it is a division that the wearer is part of, not some division within the clothing itself.
  • These choices also take inspiration from Book's wardrobe - It should be "took". Also, just say "Book's clothing".
  • including for a coat that he gives her early on which Phillips sourced from Bulgarian fashion brand Demobaza - Awkward sentence. Here's my suggestion: "including a coat Book gives her early in the season that was sourced from Bulgarian fashion brand Demobaza."
  • One of Hetrick's primary focuses for the season was creating the Orion characters - The average reader won't know what Orion characters are. You should provide clarification.
  • full-face masks - Just write face masks
  • The source doesn't state that they only used green makeup in the previous series.
  • Like the Orion characters, "Andorian characters" should also be clarified.
  • The startrek.com video does not load for me. Is this an issue with the website or on my end?
    • Not sure about this one, the video definitely loads for me on StarTrek.com and other places it is available either do not work internationally or are things like facebook which I would rather avoid. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Overall, there's a lot of information here the average reader won't be interested in. I suggest removing some of it.

Filming

edit

Post-production

edit
  • it was taking longer than previous seasons due to the pandemic. - This isn't actually written in the source, but I'll let it slide considering how obvious it is.

Visual effects

edit

Music

edit
  • Tag the Film Music Magazine as "usurped" in the url-status. The domain seems to have been purchased by someone else.
  • Film Music Reporter may be self-published. I suggest finding another source for this information.
    • There is also another source there supporting the soundtrack, but Film Music Reporter is pretty widely used and considered reliable for film and TV articles, in my experience, and has the full album details which is better than using something like Spotify or Apple to support those. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Marketing

edit
  • Several commentators questioned whether Starfleet still existed in the universe based on dialogue in the trailer - The average reader won't care about this.
    • MOS:TV doesn't really have a stance on this, but per MOS:FILMMARKETING we should always include at least basic commentary on standard marketing such as trailers, and I think it is good to follow that here. I agree that it isn't a great line, but it is the only useful commentary that I could pull from the sources for that trailer. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • In late February 2020, key art for the season was released on Twitter by a purported CBS account. The images were shortly taken down due to a copyright claim from CBS, with the original account believed to be a fake - As I've mentioned earlier, Daily Star Trek News has only one editor and no editorial policy. Without further citations, this doesn't seem like something to include in the article.
  • If you remove that, make sure to compensate the following sentence as well.
  • blocked it as a copyright infringement - Rewrite to: "for copyright infingement"

Reception

edit

Critical response

edit
  • Over-citation. Collect the citations that number four or more in notes.
    • My concern with bundling the review sources is that they are already being used individually, so adding them to a bundle will be citing the same source multiple times in the article. It was my understanding that we should avoid doing this. I have updated the section to limit each grouping to four cites, let me know if you think more work is needed for them. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Melanie McFarland from Salon felt it showed how to carry on from adversity which was appropriate following the 2016 United States presidential election. - Comma before "which"
  • Tom + Lorenzo is self-published. They do not seem to qualify per WP:RSSELF: "established expert[s] on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"
    • I initially had the same concern, but they are approved critics on Rotten Tomatoes and, per their website's about page, they have experience in the industry and have written for many other reliable sources, so I think they are good to use. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Collura questioned what the season actually revealed about the loss of hope and stated - There should be a colon after this sentence, not a comma

Accolades

edit
  • Critics Choice Award link should be more specific and lead to the appropriate content. Right now, only the archived link shows their nomination (but it also doesn't say who won because the bold font screwed or something, so there's no telling if Star Trek didn't actually win anything). I'd suggest trying to find the correct page, or just just linking to a non-primary source.
  • The Directors Guild of Canada ref doesn't even say he was nominated in the current version. Only the archive does.
  • The Dragon Awards ref doesn't state the winners, so there's no way to verify whether it won or not.
  • The NBCNews link doesn't state that it won the Outstanding Drama Series award. It does link to a YouTube video, however, which you might as well reference here as well, as it is published by GLAAD. I'd also suggest a time-stamp in that case.
  • The Golden Reel Awards ref doesn't say who's won, so you can't verify whether this show did, only that it was nominated.
  • The Hollywood Music in Media Awards ref (or the archive) does not mention either Russo or Star Trek.
  • The Visual Effects Society Awards ref only mentions nominees, not winners. Ergo, not able to verify that it did not win.
  • Similarly, the Women's Image Network Awards only mentions the nominees. I think you get the jist by now.

Lead

edit

Overall assessment

edit

The article has good and precisely written prose, but some of it may not be understandable to the average viewer. The scope of the article is broad, but perhaps a bit too much so, as it details a lot of information the average reader won't care about (chiefly in the design and visual effects sections). It also has some seemingly self-published or otherwise unreliable citations. Otherwise, it is stable, neutral, and well-illustrated. If the aforementioned issues are rectified in a timely manner, I'd feel comfortable giving this article a pass. Anyhow, I'll be putting this review on hold, and will await your response. ArcticSeeress (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Addendum: I have now noticed that you are on holiday till the 20th. I'll keep this article on hold till the 30th to give you ample time to review it. ArcticSeeress (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review ArcticSeeress, looks very thorough! I will get to addressing your comments once I am back from my break. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@ArcticSeeress: Thanks again for the review, I have now responded to your concerns above and made updates to the article. Let me know if more changes are needed. I do want to note that I disagree that the average reader won't care about the design and visual effects sections. I think these are both key parts of a science fiction film/series that a reader would definitely expect to learn about in a good article. They are also especially relevant for Discovery since this series has won Emmys for both, which is likely why there is a lot of coverage in good sources that I was able to use. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Adamstom.97: I've looked through the article again and made some small remarks above (nothing important though). I have nothing else to comment on. Good work! ArcticSeeress (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Great, thanks again! - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Trek:_Discovery_season_3/GA1&oldid=1216321235"