Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek: The Motion Picture/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 Karanacs 21:31, 30 May 2009 [1].

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

edit
Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

On the eve of the latest Star Trek film, we bring you a mammoth tale of how the franchise made its way to the silver screen in the first place, three decades past. It's a bit of a long article, but I hope a reasonably diverting one. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know that length objections are hard to address, but this has 13,000+ words of prose. That would be 50+ pages in print. Wikipedia:Article size gives 10,000 words of prose as the upper bound of acceptable article length, and says an article is getting too long when the prose would be 10 pages printed out. It just seems like the length here is beyond what an encyclopedia article should be... you're supposed to be able to read an encyclopedia article in a relatively short period of time to get a basic overview of a topic. I can't imagine many people could really read this in one go. --Chiliad22 (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When an editor breaks his ass to compose the definitive article--by anyone, anywhere, in any medium--on a given subject, as is the case here, I believe our foundational ethic, WP:IAR, directs us to support that definitiveness (and to support further such efforts) over length guidelines. Is this article long, l-o-n-g, extremely long? Yes. Is it too long? I'm not prepared to say so. Can it be profitably trimmed? Let's see. Does it a priori need to be trimmed? No.

I'll have much more to say about this superb article over the next couple weeks--this article needs no encouragement (and anyway, I recently learned my lesson with another film article candidate here that encouragement may breed nothing more than complacency); it merely yearns for perfection.

Here's my initial issue--referring in the main text to the film by its very generic sounding subtitle, The Motion Picture, just does not work. I've checked several general reference works--it's not easy to find coverage of this film that gives the title more than once ('cause, it's, you know, a boring film that lazy critical types don't want to linger on too long): not one refers to it this way. Nor can I think of any other movie that is conventionally referred to by a generic subtitle. If there are human beings out there who actually walk around calling this motion picture The Motion Picture...I. Am. Afraid.

It seems to me there are three better choices: Star Trek (which would require careful consideration of contextual phrasing to avoid confusion), Star Trek: The Motion Picture (which is l-o-n-g, but could work if the text was edited to eliminate a share of the existing direct title references), or Star Trek: TMP (which is the oddest-looking, but better than what we currently have and the easiest concise substitution). (Anyone who wants to suggest ST:TMP, it's definitely past your bedtime.) I look forward to delving deeper into this article, but I'd like to see this matter--which obviously arises throughout the piece--addressed first.DocKino (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I used The Motion Picture because it's a fairly standard way of referring to something with a subtitled name. Also, it's been the practice on all the other Star Trek films to used their subtitled names only (The Undiscovered Country, First Contact, The Wrath of Khan, et al), so the nomenclature here is just in keeping with that. Considering that in other articles where it's not clear which Star Trek we're referring to, we have to do something like that anyhow, I figure it works. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that it's arguably in keeping with how the other films in the series are referred to on Wikipedia doesn't count for much. The more important fact is I can't find a single high-quality source that refers to the film in this peculiar fashion. There's a reason for this discrepancy: The other films in the series, until the most recent, are sequels. Unlike Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the distinctive identity of each is borne not by the primary title, but by the subtitle. Star Trek: The Motion Picture is plainly different as a name. The pursuit of consistency has led you astray here.
  • Standard practice on Wikipedia is to refer to subjects with the name by which they are commonly known in the English language. (If more than one name or version of a name is commonly used, we have a choice. That choice here would essentially be between Star Trek and Star Trek: The Motion Picture.) This article defies that standard practice for no compelling reason. Featured Articles are supposed to feature "professional standards of writing [and] presentation." Referring to this film as The Motion Picture strikes me as obviously unprofessional, a view borne out by a perusal of the professional literature in the field.DocKino (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you want to whack at a strawman? I don't know or care whether TMP is a "fan" abbreviation—it's an abbreviation that I could imagine you making a viable argument for. It's also odd that you would dismiss it on the basis that you do, then turn to two fan-oriented periodicals for support of the current formulation.
  • At any rate, I believe I've made clear that the two possibilities that best accord with both standard Wikipedia practice and how the movie is referred to in--allow me to specify--reference books and other high-quality, published histories of cinema are Star Trek and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. You've offered no compelling reason to favor The Motion Picture over either of those choices.DocKino (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to set up any kind of strawman. I am simply saying that there are sources (and I would hardly call Cinefantastique fan-oriented) that refer to the film in shorthand as The Motion Picture. There's never been any other user who has objected to the nomenclature. I see no pressing reason to change it based on your notions that it is "unprofessional", when no one else has ever voiced the same opinion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My "notions," huh? Okay. Please allow me to explain the basis of my "notions." They are based on looking at how the movie is referred to in some serious published books in the field (that is, after the first appearance of the title, which is almost invariably the complete title). Books such as these:
Sound-on-Film: Interviews with Creators of Film Sound‎, by Vincent LoBrutto: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (pp. 159–163, 219–223).
Lost Illusions: American Cinema in the Shadow of Watergate and Vietnam, 1970–1979, by David A. Cook: Star Trek (p. 60).
Star Trek and Sacred Ground: Explorations of Star Trek, Religion, and American Culture, by Jennifer E. Porter and Darcee L. McLaren: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (pp. 168–169).
Alien Zone II: The Spaces of Science-Fiction Cinema, ed. by Annette Kuhn: Star Trek (p. 251).
Your statement that "no one else has ever voiced the same opinion" sounds impressive, until we do a little digging. You apparently started editing this article in earnest in October of last year, when it had no consistent manner of referring to the film. Since that time, before me and aside from you, a grand total of six people contributed to the article's Talk page. Well, you can't count 'em with the fingers of one hand...
At any rate, the concern has been raised here, at FAC, where we do our best to hold articles to our highest standards. Your primary defense for the present formulation--which defies both standard Wikipedia practice and, from what I can see, the norms of high-quality sources--is that it has appeared in the magazine Cinefantastique, a periodical which is not even cited in the article. And on that note, I and my "notions" bow out.DocKino (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in response I can list Jungian reflections within the cinema: a psychological analysis of sci-fi and fantasy archetypes by James F. Iaccino; The Art of Star Trek by J. & G. Reeves-Stevens; Star trek and history: race-ing toward a white future by Daniel Bernardi. In short, it's not at all uncommon to refer to it as The Motion Picture; it certainly isn't defying any standards. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Next time, consider weighing in from the get-go with your best sources instead of treading water with lesser references and notions about fellow Wikipedians' "notions".DocKino (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two Comments & Leaning Support The referencing looks good overall: There are two Shay references, but nothing is done in the notes to distinguish between them (e.g., August 1980a versus August 1980b). The authors' names in two books are given in reverse order in notes versus refs: is it Roddenberry & Sackett or Sackett & Roddenberry? Ditto Kreski/Shatner v. Shatner/Kreski. Ayers (2006) is mentioned in the notes but not the refs. These notes are duplicated & could be named refs instead: Tiwari, Neha; Sackett & Roddenberry, 129.; Sackett & Roddenberry, 95.
  • I read it once, top to bottom. I occasionally got the feeling that a topic was discussed, dropped, then discussed elsewhere again in a new section (ee.g., something about the construction of V'ger?). Please re-read carefully for slightly scattered organization. However, I may be mistaken. :-) Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've fixed the ref calls. Ayers (2006) is only used once (for a single page) which is why it's in notes not refs. Also, the V'ger thing is due to the fact that the model is discussed in design, but the actual construction requires knowledge of the whole special effects process so it's shunted off into postproduction. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR is about improving Wikipedia... while having good content is obviously a good thing, I don't think having articles so long that few people will read them improves Wikipedia. I'm sure a wonderful 20,000 word article could be written on a topic like the American Civil War... but at some point you're writing a short book, not an encyclopedia article. This is a collection of encyclopedia articles, not mini-books... and I don't think using IAR to wedge in things that aren't really encyclopedia articles in scope improves the project. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I emphasized the definitive nature of the ambition. Wikipedia is not and cannot be the venue for the definitive treatment of a topic such as the American Civil War, but it can be the venue for the definitive treatment of something like a movie. WP:IAR makes clear that the promotion of such efforts serves the mission much more than does insistence on length guidelines. Further, while topics such as the Civil War lend themselves to the creation of viable topical articles capable of attracting their own readership and whose significant content can be presented in summary style in a main overview article, individual movies do not. While Dot's suggestion of a Production of Star Trek: The Motion Picture was obviously meant in good faith, the practical effect would be to expose far fewer readers to that material. In sum, our foundational ethic isn't being used to "wedge" a single thing in; I raise it as a reminder of our priorities. All that being said, it wouldn't hurt to go through the sprawling "Production" section and see if there are extraneous details that might be trimmed.DocKino (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Use p. for single page references, pp. for multiple (ref 117 (Vail..) is one page with pp. Probably others.
  • NY or New York? Should be New York Times not NY Times. (current ref 133 NY Tiems...)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I worked with this article for a while before it was posted and read through it several times. The prose and sourcing look good to me. It is long, but I don't think there is anything in particular to be gained from breaking it up, other than making it shorter. If that is the only gain, it's not worth it and only adding clicks for readers. --Laser brain (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Too many headshots. Plus the picture of Jeffrey Katzenberg is ridiculous and the picture of Douglas Trumbull is watermarked. I would suggest finding better pictures of those two, or better yet, just remove the pictures from the article. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless you have better images to replace them, removing the images will only result in a wall of text that looks rather unappealing to look at, let alone read. The watermark can simply be photoshopped out of the Trumbull picture, if it's really such an issue. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is the whole recent debate about plot summaries gonna have any impact on this article? if so, what? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It shouldn't do; that was over whether to include in the guidelines a proscription against articles that consist solely of plot summaries. Whatever else may be said in this FAC, no-one can accuse this article of lacking substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance. Steve T • C 06:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial support, comments to come - Looking the article over, I don't see any problem with the length of the article, and congratulate David on his hard work. Skinny87 (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with comments. This is a tour de force; a well-written, engaging and comprehensive contribution. I read it in one sitting, which took longer than I had realised. There are, however, a few tiny things that spoil it in my view.
    • Spelling of cancelled/canceled is not consistent.
    • In ran three seasons would "ran for three seasons" be better?
    • The article uses "in order to" instead of just "to".
    • What is ultrasuede and what are nacelles?
    • I don't like the abbreviation of inch especially in "20 in model". (No deal breaker)
    • I dislike linking in general but I think Isaac Asimov deserves to be.
    • Here 24 frames per second, and then at the slower 48 frames - 48 per second is surely faster than 24 per second and not slower?
    • You can't boost f-stops, you can only increase or decrease them, and you decrease them to let in more light I think.
    • The BBC is a huge organisation that does not review anything so this a 2001 BBC review claimed the film was a critical failure should be "a 2001 review for the BBC.."
    • Finally, this book citation looks odd: Roddenberry, Susan; Sackett, Gene (1980). The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. New York: Pocket Books. ISBN 0671251813.

Thanks for a very entertaining hour. Graham Colm Talk 12:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Fixed most of the above. I am 99% positive they said "boost" the f-stops in the citation (unfortunately I don't have it now), but I changed the wording (perhaps they were just being overly technical.) Fixed the ENGVAR issues (it's sad that I can't properly write American English) and the citation. Thanks for the review. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The production section's a beast, so that's where I'm going to focus my efforts.

  • Spell out NASA on its first appearance.
  • "Wise directed fifteen takes" "fifteen" should be "15" per WP:MOSNUM. Further down, I see "fourteen days" (14 days), please check throughout for places where numbers should be words or vice versa.
  • "A total of 1,650 ft of film was used for the first day's shots" "A total of" is redundant; can this be put into active voice?
  • "420 ft were good, 1,070 ft were no good, and 160 ft were wasted; only one and one-eighth pages had been shot" So what's the difference between "wasted" film and "no good" film (I'm ignorant, I know :))
  • "console monitors show up better." I think "display" is better than "show up".
  • "LAPD" Another abbreviation to be spelled out on first sight.
  • "During construction one young visitor to a soundstage" A few sentences later, you call the thief a "man". I don't know, but to me, "young" is anywhere below the age of 18 (strictly speaking).
  • "Getting permission" "Getting" seems too loose to me, maybe "securing"?
  • "were composed of miniature stairs, rocks, bits of red glass and a miniature version of a Vulcan statue" Can we eliminate the "miniature ... miniature" repetition?
  • Conversions are missing all over the place, e.g., "16 foot high", "110 by 150 feet long", "40 ft x 80 ft", etc. Please go through the entire article and put in conversions.
  • "12 volt light bult"-->12-volt light bulb ... "4000 watt lamps"-->4000-watt lamps (please check entire article for missing hyphens)
  • "PM" per WP:MOSNUM, should be pm or p.m.
  • "Difficulties resulting in the scene being shot ten times" Wrong tense. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The show developed a cult following, and talks of reviving the franchise began." What do you mean by "talks"? Rumors? Discussions? Negotiations?
  • "Roddenberry was allocated $3 to $5 million" Consider using {{inflation}}.
  • "By June 30 he had churned out what he considered an acceptable script, but studio executives disagreed." "churned out" is a bit too loose, and isn't a good word in this context.
  • "The object turns out to be a super-advanced computer, the remains of a scheming race who were cast out of their dimension and into ours." Generally, we shouldn't be using personal pronouns in articles.
  • "The film was postponed until spring 1975 while Paramount fielded new scripts for Star Trek II" Per WP:SEASON, try to use a month or general area of the year instead of seasons.
  • "A revolving door of screenwriters" Another loose expression that will leave some readers' heads spinning.
  • "twenty-page treatment "-->20-page treatment
  • "and by the fall of 1976 the project" Same comment about seasons. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered using the {{harvnb}} template, for readers' ease of navigation and verifiability?

Here's how it would look. Steve T • C 22:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two substantive gaps in coverage—the first involving the industrial/cultural significance of the film, the second involving its critical analysis.

(1) While a few "amplified episodes" of TV series had previously been distributed to cinemas, Star Trek was the first major motion picture derived from an original television series. We now take such adaptations for granted, but this was a significant step at the time. Here's a good place to start in addressing this matter:
  • Adaptations: From Text to Screen, Screen to Text, by Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan
(2) The various opinions of movie reviewers' are well covered in the article, but there is a substantial corpus of scholarly literature on the film that is entirely overlooked. Aside from journal articles, its themes have been analyzed in such books as the following:
  • Jungian Reflections Within the Cinema: A Psychological Analysis of Sci-Fi and Fantasy Archetypes, by James F. Iaccino
  • Space and Beyond: The Frontier Theme in Science Fiction‎, by Gary Westfahl
  • Star Trek and Sacred Ground: Explorations of Star Trek, Religion, and American Culture, by Jennifer E. Porter and Darcee L. McLaren
  • Religions of Star Trek, by Ross Shepard Kraemer, William Cassidy, and Susan L. Schwartz
  • Matters of Gravity: Special Effects and Supermen in the 20th Century, by Scott Bukatman
Just to be clear, all of these books address the film's themes specifically, not just those of the Star Trek universe in general.DocKino (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on research - Hi Doc - thanks for the information. I just want to respond that I shared your concern early on in the process about the exact same sections. I discovered that not only is David a very thorough researcher, but that my own efforts to come up with additional meaningful information about this film specifically came up blank. I searched film journals, books, and other sources, and I know David did as well. There is a lot of information that applies to the Star Trek series as a whole, especially along the cultural and industry influence path, but very little that applies only to this film. I'm confident that the existing literature about this film has been tapped to an appropriate degree. The sources you list are more valuable for an article about the series or the entire cultural phenomenon of Star Trek. --Laser brain (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Star Trek was the first major motion picture derived from an original television series" is a very dubious claim. In America, yes, possibly so (although I could make a case for Batman), but I can think of plenty of major British movies derived from original TV series which predate Star Trek – Dad's Army (1971), Steptoe and Son (1972), the three On the Buses films (1971–73), The Likely Lads (1966), and numerous Monty Python films, none of which could be considered "extended episodes", and some of which such as Monty Python and the Holy Grail are "major motion pictures" by any definition. – iridescent 19:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iridescent, you're right, I should have specified that the industrial context in which Star Trek: The Motion Picture marked a significant development is that of the world's wealthiest and most influential (in terms of global distribution) motion picture industry, Hollywood. (As for the 1966 Batman, not only was its TV basis obviously not an original series, but more relevantly the film's budget--$1.38 million--was barely more than half that of the average Hollywood feature film of the time [$2.5 million in 1965 per The Hollywood Story, Joel W. Finler, p. 36].)
  • LB, I can only imagine that you missed the last line of my comment. I stated very clearly, "Just to be clear, all of these books address the film's themes specifically, not just those of the Star Trek universe in general." Let's give this another shot: Scholars have identified significant thematic matters that are quite specific to this film; a considerable analytical corpus concerned with these specific thematic matters has been produced; this substantial critical discussion of specific matters pertaining to this specific film is entirely absent from this specific article. If the article can support a "Production" section that is just shy of 10,000 words, it can surely support a paragraph or two on the film's specific scholarly analysis. I've given David a head start by identifying five books that include pertinent and specific thematic treatment.DocKino (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another important point--this is, again, in the realm of industrial/cultural significance:

(3) Star Trek: The Motion Picture marked the start of Paramount/Gulf+Western's "coordinated approach to building a Trek product line that fed internal markets for movies, novelizations, nonfiction books, and novels" as well as other products (Why TV Is Not Our Fault: Television Programming, Viewers, and Who's Really in Control, by Eileen R. Meehan, p. 93). We've come to take that product line for granted, but it emerged in a coordinated fashion only in 1979, a decade after the original series' cancellation. The movie's release was accompanied by, among many other things, a novelization and the launch of a "line of original novels presenting the further adventures of Kirk and company." (Among those other things: Star Trek: The Motion Picture Iron-On Transfer Book, Star Trek: The Motion Picture Make Your-Own Costume Book, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture Peel-Off Graphics Book. I've put this in parentheses to indicate that, no, I don't think each of these glorious items needs to be specifically mentioned in the article.)DocKino (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Change to Support: I'm being lazy (or busy in RL); I publically confess. On my first somewhat-rapid read-through, I was 90% sure it was good enough for FA in its original state as nominated, but just as sure that some problems would come up. I now see that DaBomb, LaserBrain and DocKino are on the case, and are making excellent observations. I'm going out on a limb and Supporting now, 'cause I'm sure the problems are not at all insoluble (e.g., no probs with POV or deeper issues, such as have caused long-term discussion in other noms in the past). Congrats on an excellent article. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 01:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox has the running time of the director's cut. It also (and more importantly) needs the running time of the original release version.DocKino (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:St1-enterprise_and_whiplash_bolt.png - I dont believe conveys that much information, it just appears dark and small. (WP:NFCC#8), The cast image packs a lot in, and a good exaple of meeting nfcc#3 Fasach Nua (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, this image packs a lot of information.
  • It shows what the newly redesigned Enterprise looks like. (The Enterprise, of course, is the icon of the Star Trek universe).
  • It shows Trumbull's innovative self-illumination system, as described in the text, which, to be meaningfully conveyed, obviously requires a relatively dark shot.
  • It shows important aspects of the film's primary !antagonist, V'ger.
  • It supports and exemplifies the accompanying discussion of how the work of different effects teams was combined.
The image readily passes NFCC #8.DocKino (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Star_trek-the_motion_picture.png The source is forbidden, can the url be added, I am a little crious about the tag line, it doesnt seem to be on all versions of this poster Fasach Nua (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go here and click on the poster to the left and it takes you to the source – don't know why it's showing as forbidden to link direct as the URL's definitely correct. – iridescent 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, Trekcore's URLs are strange--clicking on links often doesn't work, but entering it into the navbar does. I'm not really sure why. As to the tag line, you've got me. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely they check the HTTP "Referer" header and reject any links with an unapproved referrer to prevent hot linking. Anomie⚔ 11:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from FAC delegate: How are we coming on Doc Kino's comprehensiveness concerns? Can both David and Doc post an update please? Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in some of the sources he has mentioned, but I will be unable to finish off a complete Themes section until I have access to my university library again. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that something you expect in the next week, or will it take a longer amount of time? Not meaning to rush you, but this has been open a long time.... Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be able to pick up any books until term starts and I'm physically in Richmond... so not until August at the earliest. Doc's either gotta' be satisfied with that or no. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize, here are the three areas I felt needed coverage (for comprehensiveness, of course, and also to balance the 11,000-word "Production" section):
(1) Industrial impact as major Hollywood motion picture based on original TV series: Not yet addressed. I offered one source, accessible via Google Book Search. This topic may warrant only a couple of sentences, given what I've been able to find of WP:V standard, so perhaps this could be taken care of now.
(2) Critical analysis of themes: Partially addressed. A mini-section of one short paragraph now exists--it's of high quality...a very good start. Only one of the five sources I offered has been used. The rest are all available via Google Book Search, but as this is a complex topic, it's certainly understandable if David wants to wait until he has access to a good library.
(3) Paramount/Gulf+Western's coordinated exploitation of the Star Trek brand: Fully addressed.
David has demonstrated a commitment to resolving #2. If #1 can be taken care of now, I see no need to hold up the article's promotion. DocKino (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the line I believe you were referring to in the first paragraph of release. If you have a better location for the info, by all means, be bold. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine. I boldly went and added another sentence at the end of the "Release" subsection. See what you think.
For future reference, another "Themes" source: Lincoln Geraghty's ST:TMP entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, ed. Gary Westfahl. An interesting observation or two on p. 1262. DocKino (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The addition looks fine. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support In full expectation that the "Themes" section will be completed during the next academic semester. In every other regard, this is an unequivocally high-quality article. DocKino (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposefor now. Switch to Neutral Steve T • C I'm really sorry I've come to this review late in the day, especially considering how I've !voted. The amount of detail here is largely superb; almost anything one might want to know about the production can be gleaned from this article, which is probably the finest single resource available anywhere about ST:TMP. That said, I have issues with the incomplete "Themes" section (see below), and I don't think the prose is quite there yet. The lead alone contained several errors of grammar, and one of fact, that probably shouldn't have been present at this late stage. For reference, here are the edits I made to the section: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. You may not agree with exactly how I've reworded it to resolve the issues, and that'd be fair enough, but I hope you can see why the remedies were necessary in the first place. However, the "curse of the lead" is something I've fallen afoul of in the past when reviewing, so these issues may not be representative of the rest of the article. With that in mind, I looked at the "Plot" section. Some issues stood out, but not as many, and they mainly related to ambiguous wording that could confuse someone unfamiliar with the plot, so I ran through and fixed what I could see. Plus, once written to a decent standard, the plot section is perhaps the most stable, the least edited and therefore the least likely to have had a final polish, so I picked another couple of sections from the article body for a closer look: Here are some issues I found with "Critical response"; these I've left untouched, as there are also minor issues that don't relate to the niggly prose concerns:
    • "The Motion Picture met with lukewarm reception from critics" – disappointed to see that the first sentence of the section just doesn't quite work. For an idea why, imagine it without the adjective: "met with... reception." It needs to say "a lukewarm" reception" or similar.
    • Looking closer, the statement is uncited. I know it's true, and I'd bet there are 300 cites out there that say it, but because most major productions receive hundreds of reviews, we need to avoid the potential charge that the reception section is selectively choosing those reviews that support this particular viewpoint . For example, selective quoting could be used to give the impression that even a critically-panned film is well liked, as even those are likely to have received half a dozen positive notices amongst the derision.
    • "Livingston also lamented the lack of "boldly characterized" antagonists or battle scenes that made Star Wars fun." – ambiguous; does Livingston mean the boldly characterized antagonists and battle scenes that made Star Wars fun, or does he mean the boldly characterized antagonists in isolation from his comparison with Star Wars?
    • Inconsistent use of "2001" and "2001: A Space Odyssey". At the very least, the longhand title should be used first, with the shorthand for subsequent mentions.
    • "The characters and acting got a mixed reception." – uncited, see above; we need to avoid the appearance of selective quoting to reach a conclusion.
    • "Stephen Godfrey of The Globe and Mail rated their performances highly;" – typo? It's followed by a quote, so should be a colon, not a semi-colon.
    • "Martin considered the characters more likeable than in other comparable science fiction films." – we don't need that "other", and the way this is worded could suggest—if I'm being uncharitable—that he means the same characters in these other SF films. A minor tweak would resolve both: "Martin considered the characters more likeable than those in comparable science fiction films." If he gives an example of one of these other SF films, that would be nice too.
    • "Stephen Collins and Persis Khambatta were more favorably received." – uncited, see above.
    • "Gene Siskel felt the film 'teeters towards being a crashing bore' whenever Khambatta was not on screen" – spot the tense mix-up.
    • "and Jack Kroll of Newsweek felt that she had the most memorable entrance in the film." – ignoring the double entendre ("introduction" might be better), without context (what that entrance was) it doesn't really mean much.
    • "Many critics felt that the special effects overshadowed other elements of the film." – uncited. While you do indeed quote some critics who say this, the comment is clearly intended to represent some kind of consensus, and that aspect perhaps needs verification.
    • "Godfrey called the effects 'stunning', but conceded that the special effects threatened to overpower the story two-thirds of the way into the film." The repetition ("the effects... the special effects") sounds odd, especially given the variation in how the exact same aspect is described. A simple "...called the special effects stunning, but conceded that they threatened to..." might resolve it. Godfrey's "threatened" statement is an odd one; is he essentially saying that the effects came close to overpowering the story 2/3 through, but managed not to do so?
    • "Later assessments of the film have echoed these criticisms." – vague enough that it perhaps doesn't require a cite, but as it again seems to be implying a consensus, it seems a bit iffy.
    • "The film has a 54% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 28 reviews." Context? Someone unfamiliar with the website might not know what a "54% positive rating" means. Suggest wording similar to that found at Milk (film)#Critical reception. The other problem with using Rotten Tomatoes to gauge any kind of critical consensus on older films, be it from the time of the film's release or now, is that for anything before, say 2001, it quotes too selectively to be of much use. There are 30 reviews here, dating from 2000 to the present day; I'm not sure that's really telling us anything. For an example of why this is a problem, see how the site treats something like Fight Club (1999). The film polarised critics at the time of its release, yet to read Rotten Tomatoes' selective compiling for this film (released well before the site became active), you'd think that it was released to widespread acclaim.
  • The other section I looked at in detail was "Postproduction":
    • "Postproduction" is usually rendered as two words.
    • Inconsistency: "Abel and Associates" and "Abel and Associated".
    • Inconsistent use of comma/no-comma after "In [date]" constructions.
    • Inconsistency: "carte blanche" is italicised here but not elsewhere (the lead, IIRC).
    • "the producers were keenly aware that after the optical effects of Star Wars the television movie could not settle for outdated effects" – I think you need to establish that this is because Star Wars' effects were groundbreaking/amazing (for the time), e.g., "after Star Wars' groundbreaking optical effects, the television movie..."
    • "He also suggested more cuts to supporting characters during interactions and dialogue." – I don't think this works; he's not recommending cuts to the supporting characters, but to/from their interactions and dialogue. "More" is probably unnecessary too. Perhaps the sentence would be more accurately rendered as: "He also suggested cuts to the interactions and dialogue of the supporting characters."
    • "Abel was not experienced in motion picture production and the company's steep learning curve worried the producers." – would we use "learning curve" like this? It's not the company that has a steep learning curve, but the effort they have to expend on becoming skilled at the process. Also, is "Abel" used here to refer to the man or the company?
    • "he and Trumbull formulated a plan which involved reassembling the equipment and crew from Close Encounters" – you can say "reassembling the equipment" or "reassembling the crew" without much ambiguity, but together as "reassembling the equipment and crew" it doesn't work, as the intended use of "reassembling" is subtly changed for the second instance, even though it's already been used one way. Essentially, it sounds as if Trumbull assembled each crew member out of their constituents, rather than assembled the team.
  • OK, I'll stop there. In truth, the section isn't badly written; some of the inconsistencies are minor enough that it might seem I'm being petty. What I really think the article needs is less easily defined, but includes a good trim of redundant words and phrases that only serve to bog the reader down instead of propelling them along. Random examples: "The effects budget figure climbed to $10 million"; "at the very latest"; "Employing a staff of 60 people"; "completing them on time and keeping the price down while they were at it". It just makes some of it a bit of a slog; the article is long enough without the long-windedness.
  • Some miscellaneous comments:
    • I'm wondering why there is no mention of Star Trek: The Animated Series (1973–1974) early on; the development section jumps straight from the original live-action series to the film's development. Did the performance of this affect considerations over whether to restart the franchise? Plus, without mentioning the animated series, the early talk of "restarting the franchise" would seem very odd to someone who didn't know that show existed, as without it Star Trek wouldn't have been a franchise to restart (technically, they'd be starting one).
    • It seems odd that the lead sentence mentions only the studio; most film articles reserve the space for the key creative personnel, with the studio maybe where it belongs, among the production or release paragraph. Not a big issue really, just odd.
    • The propensity for elegant variation also rears its head throughout; good prose renders duplication invisible; a synonym interrupts the reader, who wonders why the change has occurred, and it can lead to ambiguity for those unfamiliar with the subject. See the linked article for a good explanation.
    • "However" is almost never needed; some/many uses of "the film" (and its synonyms) are unnecessary, save where another subject is mentioned close by that might render the statement ambiguous. That this article is talking about its subject is implicit.
    • So then. Themes. I've read the discussions above, and I have no doubt that you will get around to crafting a suitable "Themes" section, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the thought of this being promoted on the promise that a major, necessary, section will be added. I might be less concerned if it was something you were going to get around to in the next week or two, but given that it won't be until "August at the earliest", promoting this article—having it sit in the "Featured Quality" pen—while still incomplete makes me uneasy, is precedent-setting, and unfair to those we've opposed in the past for not being comprehensive, despite the nominators' assurances that the work would be done (David, see the first Braid FAC for a roughly analogous situation, where you agreed with my assessment that the nominator should wait a month.
  • The prose issues seem generally representative of the rest of the article, though they are probably easily remedied given a sustained burst of copyediting, but the incomplete "Themes" section is a pretty large bugbear. As ever, feel free to disagree with anything I've said, and I'll be more than happy to strike this oppose if you have a good rebuttal to these points. I hope you know I wouldn't oppose this willy-nilly, with no strong reasoning, especially given my support for your last few FACs. It would just be a shame if some more time wasn't taken to get this article from "largely excellent" to truly so. All the best, Steve T • C 11:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made all the spelled-out fixes above, and will try and run through the rest of the article later today. For the elegant variation, I admit I had not come across the subject before and will have to run through with an eye out, however many of the listed examples are areas where changing synonyms results in changing meaning; I'm pretty sure that's not the case in most clauses and if it sounds clunkier the other way, I'll leave it as is.
    • In regards to your two main points. I understand how you could see the lead sentences in reception as possible POV synth, and I will try to find sources where possible (I did so already for the overall reception.) However I am loath to remove them outright. Basic paragraph writing demands topic sentences to let people know what the heck they are reading, and removing them would I believe decrease the clarity of the section. For example, Changeling just has a running dialogue with reviewer's comments. That's your style, it doesn't bother me, but personally I find it hard to keep track of what they are referring to. Is this paragraph about the characters? Is this one about the setting? It's not immediately obvious and I feel gives too much weight to each individual critic.
    • Finally, in regards to the themes: I think this is a much different situation than Braid. I opposed there because there was a coming PC release of the game and there was good reason to believe that its coverage might substantially improve, especially in reception. Star Trek: The Motion Picture has been out six months shy of thirty years; there's not going to be newly-published information that will dramatically change the article, or have the likelihood of dramatically changing this article, unless someone puts out a philosophical tome waxing about V'ger. Here the only obstacle is my current geographic location from James Branch Cabell. Like I told Doc, if it bothers you, I'm not going to browbeat you over the head over your oppose. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the reply. For the prose issues, I'll take another look through when you've made further edits, and pitch in with some of my own where I can. Elegant variation is mainly a problem where the synonym hasn't been defined, such as the one I fixed in the "Plot" section that said, "Decker offers himself to V'ger. The commander..." Decker had not at this point been referred to as "commander", so to the uninitiated it would be unclear. This FAC has been open a while now, so I'm guessing we have until pr/ar day at the weekend before this is promoted/removed; given that six other FAC regulars don't see the "Themes" section as an issue, if by then that's the only substantial concern I have I'll switch to a "neutral" !vote. All the best, Steve T • C 15:28, 28 May 2009 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture/archive1&oldid=1138472113"