Wikipedia:Peer review/Kes (Star Trek)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kes (Star Trek)[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am debating on whether or not to bring it through the WP:FAC process. I completely rewrote the article, but I am frankly unsure of the prose. I have been looking at it for so long now that I would appreciate any feedback and advice on if it is even remotely ready for a FAC. I am primarily concerned with the prose for the "Analysis" section in particular.

I am pinging @J Milburn: as they were a great help for the GAN review. I will leave this peer review open for a few months (ideally if there is enough commentary to support that amount of time) to avoid rushing anything and to make sure I give this the amount of time it needs.

Thank you in advance. I really do appreciate any help to better improve this article. To be clear, I would completely understand if it is determined that this would not be ready for a FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC[edit]

Putting myself down here for comments. If I don't say anything within a week, please give me the gears :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to double-check with you about this review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaah I'm so sorry. Please don't apologize for pinging me, this is totally on me. And I apologize for taking a few days to respond to the ping also, I've been away and not really in a position to sit down and actually do stuff. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. Thank you for the response. Take as much time as you need. There is absolutely no rush as I plan to keep this peer review active for a while to try to get as much feedback as possible. I hope you are doing well and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I'm sitting down to have a look right now :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of raw FAC-ability, I think you're very much in the clear here. Sourcing is good, you're not relying on anything patently unreliable, and I think the lesser sites like CBR and Screen Rant are generally justifiable as own-opinion sources. The article covers all the necessary bases, including a big two-pronged academic analysis section, so I think you're set on comprehensiveness also. Your prose is better than you think, although there's always room for improvement in any article. The majority of what I'm putting below are nitpicks and polishing; the bones of the thing are solid.

On to the commentary, which I'll treat basically as an FAC review. As always, prose suggestions are just suggestions, please feel free to sub in your own wording or decline the change

Lead
  • "various other reasons were attributed to her departure" - the phrasing here is reversed; her departure is the thing the reasons are being attributed to, so it should be more like: "her departure was attributed to various other reasons"
  • Revised. I also cut out "various" as it seemed like a filler word to me, but let me know if you think it should be added back into the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more disappointed" - I think "disappointed" works on its own
  • "Kes's age was discussed by" this is passive voice. I think you could simplify/revise it a bit - how about "Reviewers felt Kes's unusually short lifespan made her too young for a relationship with Neelix."
  • Revised. I completely agree. I struggle with writing leads in general and for whatever reason, I just got stuck on how to phrase this one. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was criticized" by who? I assume both reviewers and fans? I might try to attribute that if possible
  • Revised. The episode was criticized by reviewers and fans, but only reviewers named it one of the worst Star Trek moments so I tried to specify that in the lead. Please let me know if further revision is necessary of course. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Academics have analyzed Kes based on her representation of femininity..." I might slim the first clause down to "academics have analyzed Kes's representation of femininity" and then expand the second clause to say something like "particularly in the context of the 1990s anti-feminist backlash"
  • I cut down on the first clause, but I am less certain on the 1990s suggestion. One critic did focus on the anti-feminism in the 1990s while the other was more positive and talked about how the show's female characters, including Kes, mirrored real-world problems women faced in the 1990s so that is separate. Let me know if there is a better way to phrase this though as leads are always one of my biggest trouble spots. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • source calls her says "the Mayfly" not just "Mayfly"; you may also want to write that the insect famously has a short life span, for those that don't know that offhand and may not make the connection themselves
  • The source uses both. "Mayfly" is used as the character's title for the cast listings on pages 176 and 189. I think "the Mayfly" sounds better in this context anyway so I have used that version as it is used in the source. I have added a note about mayflies, but let me know if you think this would be better implemented in the prose instead. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to reference how her alien species—the Ocampa—have a short life span." can tighten to "to reference the short life span of her alien species, the Ocampa."
  • "the Joan Pearce Research Associates" companies are normally not referred to with the "the" (ex. "hired Kirkland & Ellis" rather than "hired the Kirkland & Ellis")
  • "unclear of her character's" usually "unclear on" or "unclear about"
  • I might include the detail about her second costume being Peter Pan-inspired, but I won't die on the hill if you don't think it's necessary
  • Added. I do think it is important information as it shows there were multiple costume ideas between the original pastel one and the final product. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might mention that the prosthetic makeup was the ears at the top of this paragraph, as it's not clear that that's what they are until very late in the para
  • "Westmore kept the prosthetic simple to more easily work on 30 Ocampa characters in one episode." I might revise to "Westmore kept the prosthetic simple to facilitate a later episode with a large number of Ocampa characters", to be clear about the motivation behind the simplicity
  • Revised. Westmore is actually referring to his work on the pilot episode and not a later episode. Aside from "Cold Fire", this is the only instance where multiple Ocampa are seen on-screen. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kes who never returns" maybe "Kes, although she never returns"
  • Revised. I think I was trying to be too concise here to the determinant at the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might clarify here (and in the lead?) that the Doctor is an AI who projects a hologram, just so it's clear that he is actually sentient from the get-go
  • That is a very good point. I have been looking at this for so long that it honestly did not come to mind. I have revised this both here and in the lead. I kept it to just AI for the leads as I was unsure on how to present the hologram part there. I am open to any suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Along with this" can remove, not necessary
  • Is there any other detail about her personal issues/behavior on set? Anything specific other than becoming unfocused, for example?
  • There is nothing else concrete. I tried to add a part about how Tim Russ said her responses from day-to-day for a basic conversation could vary wildly (and not in a good way). I thought it might help to further illustrate that she was not working well on set. I struggled with how to phrase it though so I put in a quote. I think it needs more work or it could be removed entirely.
  • Robert Picardo, who plays the Doctor, called her "basically monosyllabic". Robert Beltran, who plays Chakotay, said that it did not seem like she wanted to be there and guessed that maybe the "grind" of the shooting schedule affected her. Either of those may be better than the Russ part or there may be a better way to do an overview of this.
  • I do not think the cast and crew really knew what was causing these issues and are trying to stay respectful about it. I briefly thought about putting a note regarding Lien's later issues, but it is not clear if any of that played a role here. Star Trek: Voyager – A Celebration says that there were assumptions that it had to do with "addiction", but I am uncomfortable putting that in the article as it is mostly speculation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances
  • I noticed that the Appearances section in Chakotay (a GA, albeit an old one) is subdivided into "Background" and "Star Trek: Voyager" (itself subdivided). It might be worth considering splitting Kes's bio into similar smaller sections, as it's quite big
  • That is a good idea. It is always best to help readers navigate lengthy sections. I added two subsection titles. One for the background information and her introduction on the show and another for her actual time on Voyager. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is well-done, it's difficult to summarize a character's history across four lengthy seasons and a guest appearance, and you've got a good balance of relevant information without unnecessary detail
  • Thank you. It took a lot of work to only focus on the highlights or important sections of her time on the series. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a few very minor prose tweaks here, feel free to revert or adjust them
  • Thank you. I always appreciate that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to duplicate the links to episodes mentioned before, including Before and After, The Gift, and Fury, as they're relevant to readers here
  • Added. I need to get used to adding duplicate links when they are helpful, and I agree that they are beneficial for readers in these types of instances. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about stories set" I might trim to just "set during", since novels are by definition stories anyway
  • Agreed. This one was a bit silly on my part. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kes is included in" - "appears in" reads a little more natural but no big if you prefer the original
Analysis
  • Analysis sections are often the most difficult part of an article because you have to sum up what is often some very esoteric thinking in only a few sentences. I can think of instances where I've spent half an hour or more tinkering with just one or two sentences. I can see some places I would make changes, but of course always suggestions.
  • Thank you for the kind words. I agree that these types of sections are the most difficult to do.I spent a good amount of time as you said on trying to distill an article into a few sentences so the information is both concise while still comprehensive and comprehensible. This is the section that I am the most uncertain of. I actually found it much easier to incorporate these types of sources into essays back when I was an English Lit. major, and it is much more difficult to present these sources while considering Wikipedia in general. Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side thought, in most cases you see Reception first and then Analysis. Any particular reason why you've done the reverse? (Not saying you must change it, but just wondering about the reasoning)
  • I think that I was partially inspired by seeing this order done in the Iron Man article, but on second thought, I do think that it works better and just makes more sense after the reception section so I have moved it that way. I think I was just experimenting with something new and I did not have a really strong argument for it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly tweaked the opening sentence
  • Thank you. Your copy-edits are greatly appreciated. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest expanding on Consalvo's argument slightly for clarity: how about this?
    • "Communication studies professor Mia Consalvo described her as a "woman with stereotypically feminine traits" such as "empathy and caring". She notes that Kes is one of several female characters with similar characteristics on Star Trek who are placed in healthcare rather than leadership roles, and argues that this is because the setting of the series "valorized" masculine traits over feminine ones." (this requires updating the page cite to also reference 185, where "valorized" is taken from)
      • Revised. Thank you for this suggestion as it is a lot better. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "characterizes Kes as a "little girl" and struggles to maintain her innocence" - "who struggles" maybe?
  • That does work better. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't access Lee's essay, but when you say "she becomes too mature for this role", are you meaning Kes becomes too mature for the "little kid" role? Or that Lien becomes too mature for Kes?
  • I could email you a copy of the article if you would like. I really like how it is written and the analysis that Lee makes with Kes going on a journey from girlhood to adulthood, but I also wanted to warn you that he does get some story information about the show wrong or twists it a bit to fit his argument.
  • As for your question, it is the first reason in that Kes is outgrowing this "little girl" identity. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From GBooks snippets, Lee seems to compare her to other young characters on Trek, is there anything worth getting into there?
  • I have added a sentence on this part. Lee is saying that other child characters on Trek had more defined personalities while Kes is more of a "blank slate" that is defined by her curiosity. I am not necessarily sure that I personally agree with that assessment, but I do see what he means. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • May want to duplicate the link to Warlord for the same reason as above
  • I would suggest reordering/revising the second paragraph something like this, so that we're starting with what
    • "Voyager aired in the 1990s, a decade characterized by postfeminism and its "reactionary anti-feminist and traditionally gendered views". Scholars examined Kes in the context of how women were depicted in the media during that time."
    • You'd have to adapt Garcia-Siino's sentence a bit to account for moving that quote. I can't get access to either source used in this section - not sure if there's any way to squeeze a bit more detail out of their thoughts?
      • I used a version of your suggestion as I do really like it, but I did change it to attribute the quote. I tried to add a bit more. Garcia-Siino was more focused on other female characters on the series and describes Kes in a way that even Kes gets agency. I could also email you this article if you would like.
      • I decided to remove the Heath and Carlisle source as it really does not add that much and is rather vague. I was primarily attributing it to the following sentence: (All four had challenges to overcome and balance, much like women in America in the 1990s.) The "All four" part is referencing all the female main characters on Voyager. I could add it back in if you think it is helpful. I was on the fence about it, but leaned toward removal. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might swap the order of the mental abilities paragraphs, to go from broadly how the powers related to her character, and then more specifically to how they were shown as dangerous. (As a bonus, Lee's quote in particular ties in to the previous section about Kes and femininity; you might want to swap that with Viebahn's so Lee's goes first)
  • I might revise the first sentence of the "dangerous" paragraph to something like "Voyager often depicted Kes's powers as dangerous or unpredictable, which critics have interpreted in various ways." It changes up the order a bit from "critics said", and gets rid of the casualness of "like how they"
  • "non-human Kes is nearly an example of tokenism" - I assume he means as a token woman, but it's not entirely clear
  • Revised. She is actually referring to Native American stereotypes as both Kes and Neelix come on to Voyager as guides in the first episode (although neither of them are really in that role later) and are two of three non-human main characters. Let me know if that needs further clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • Hmmmmmmm. I get why the paragraphs are ordered as they are, since 2 3 and 4 kind of flow into one another. However, it means that most of the general response to Kes's character – what I would normally expect to be in "para 1" of a Reception section – is in para 2 as supporting context to why people liked her getting removed. I'm not sure there's a way around it without a lot of overhauling, but it's something to consider. Generally though the section is well-written and I don't have any actionable gripes here, just that thought.
  • That is a good point. I was unsure about how to structure this section because a majority of the reviews focus on her exit from the series. I am going to take a short break (i.e. a few days) away from the article and go through the citations to try and think of something else. I agree that it would be best to overhaul this to find something that flows more organically.
  • I did have a short paragraph about about reviews for Lien's acting (in this version). I removed it as it was only sourced to two reviewers and that do not seem like enough coverage to say anything. Keith DeCandido praised Lien's acting while doing retrospective reviews for Voyager, but I was unsure about pulling out those specific episode reviews. What is your opinion on this? Apologies in advance as I do have similar questions below. Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is me. Take your time responding of course, and I want to stress I don't consider any of these points a hill to die on, so if you don't agree, please tell me so. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for your comments. You have been a huge help. I appreciate all the time and energy you have put into this review. I will take a couple of days to draft up different ideas for the "Reception" section.
  • I do have a few questions about sources that I took out prior to this peer review just to double-check if I made the right call:
    • In this edit, I took out a source that analyzed Tuvok's mentorship of Kes. It was focused on race. It likened their relationship to Uncle Tom's friendship with Little Eva and described Kes boiling Tuvok's blood in "Cold Fire" as an instance of how Star Trek presents the "differently-raced" negatively. This seemed more appropriate for the Tuvok article to me.
    • In this edit, I took out a paragraph with scholars analyzing Janeway's relationship with Kes. The articles just seemed more focus on Janeway and her relationships with the crew in general, but I wanted to double-check with you.
  • Apologies for throwing a bunch of information at you. I just wanted to get a second opinion on this as it has been on my mind. Thank you again as you have helped me a lot. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Kes_(Star_Trek)/archive1&oldid=1223272973"