Talk:David 8/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 13:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Initiatinging review of this fictional character. I'm assuming that by nominating this article for peer review that it is your plan to make this article the main page in importance for this fictional character above that treatment presented in the two films in which he is portrayed. That is, that you have merged all the material from the related film pages and their related citations to this article dealing with this fictional character. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I did use some content from the Prometheus page as a guide for the conceptualization. Beyond that, however, the content is what I researched independently. I believe everything from the two film pages have been included, as well as information more suitable for a stand-alone good article. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 20:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Start review:


 * Lead section
 * Mention of the 'franchise' needs some care now, since it is my understanding that Scott has only committed himself to the plot lines covered in the films that he has directed, and only the films he has directed. The other films were licensed but not part of his creative investment in his new films which lead up to the 1979 Alien film. Your reference to a "central theme" in the lead section I don't think matches up with the current article, and might simply be called "a theme".
 * I've changed the mention of the theme, as I suppose it could be counted as conjecture to call it "central". However, I have not applied your suggestion pertaining to the franchise, as 20th Century Fox currently counts the canon of Alien as representing the four main films and the two prequels. Alien vs. Predator is most certainly not canon- we actually had to hammer out that clarification a couple years ago here- but the three films following Alien are counted as being a part of the franchise. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 01:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you check your wording in the lead section here: "non-human perspective the theme...". Otherwise it looks ok for now and I'll wait for you to get to the other sections. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 00:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 1 Character development
 * There is no text under this section title which leads straight to Creation and Casting without an added word. It might be worthwhile to look at some of the articles presently out there like Hamlet (character) or Raskolnikov or Elizabeth Bennett for some ideas of approaches other editors have taken to discussing fictional characters. As a separate point, it seems that some comparisons of David to other androids such as Ash in 1979, or Walter in Covenant would be useful to introduce important literary aspects of character development as a significant topic in literature.
 * I've been searching through character GAs and I have not found any that include text before the subsections and to be frank, I can't even imagine what would preface the subsections. Structurally, this article is similar to Adrian Monk and the Star Wars character articles, where the synopses follow development. The reason I didn't touch the page yesterday wasn't that I wasn't taking a crack at it, but I couldn't find good examples where there is text prior to subsections. Comparisons to other androids could be included under the two subsections, but I can't think of anything before the subsections... D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 20:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are going with the Monk article as your structural model for this article's outline then what you say makes sense. If anything my main comment here is that the Monk article is peer review quality and the four-part outline there might be of benefit to consider here as an option. The one section that is not here in your outline by comparison to the Monk article is the "Character background" section which if added here could look good in this article on David. The comparisons to other androids mentioned above you can then include in the parts of this article where you think it would be best to include them. If you are going with the Monk article as your model then adding a "Character background" section in this David article looks like a useful option. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 1.1 Creation
 * Its nice that you jump straight into the material here, though a prefatory sentence might help in this section since Alien: Engineer is unlikely to mean anything to most readers of this article unless its introduced. Some simple statement like, "Earlier versions of the screenplay for Prometheus or Covenant made preliminary assessments of David's role in the film...," in your own words covering something along these lines. In the current version you describe the "bond between David and Peter Weyland" which seems central, but you do not elaborate it here. Why is David so different from Walter, and was David really a one-off protégé for Weyland that lost course after Weyland was killed.
 * I took your recommendations and have made some changes to the Creation subsection-- I am admittedly pleased with the state of what we have thus far. Therefore, I will look to see what could be done in the Casting section. So far as the greater structure is concerned, if there will be expansion, I believe Darkwarriorblake has a concept he wants to explore in the Reception section about David fancying himself as a creator and god- I'd like to see what he'd like to do when we cross that bridge. Other than that, certain wording has been changed in the Creation subsection that makes it more congruent, gives context and with proper wording, it's made clear that David is under bondage, rather than being bonded. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 08:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You can arrange with Darkwarriorblake to bring in the new material you mention here whenever you are ready. Your transition in language from the phrase "to be bonded" to speaking about 'bondage' I think can be re-examined since 'bondage' is usually seen as a more loaded term. For example, John Calvin often gave sermons and wrote books about the "bondage of the will" which is a connotation which seems completely unrelated to this David article. If you steer away from the term 'bondage', then the article would avoid this issue of religious connotations. If you are going with the Monk article as your structural outline for this article, then a background section is still missing here in this article for David which would be useful. I am also spotting some discussion in the themes section of the Prometheus film article which you have not brought into this article with its references. Same for the Covenant article which has some relevant Scott quotes about David's programming having gone bad after Weyland is gone also with references not in this David article. Just ping my account when you are ready to continue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking through the Themes section, I'm pretty sure everything has been applied. I include David being created to be like a human but personally not wanting to be like them, the source about David's bondage is elaborated upon to explain that the Prometheus is his prison and Weyland has him in bondage with his programming, Weyland's death allows David to pursue his own ambitions, David looks to create a new entity in the lineage of creators... I wanted the themes to be touched upon, with relation to how the character was created and with context to the larger story, as well as the creative philosophy that Scott and the writers utilized. You know, I used what was applicable from the Prometheus article, but also explored with my own research. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 20:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added content about David's evolution between the movies, which is triggered by what he learns about his lineage. I'd like to mark this section as being up to par personally, if you would. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 21:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It sounds like it might be quite close. The current Prometheus article numbers its David footnotes between #54 to #59 and it looked like one or two of them were not carried over into this article on David; its up to you to make a final decision if you don't want each of the Prometheus article references to David represented in this article on David. The actual quote from Scott in the Empire interview on Covenant which you include now in the David article, I think should be carried over into this article here, where Scott states something like "David hates the Engineers, and David hates the humans"; see the Empire interview for what the exact quote was, since these are Scott's own words. Also, is there any word on if or when you plan to bring in the DWB theme material you discussed below; it would be interesting to see it, possibly as a themes or background section if that is what you had in mind when you mentioned it below. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * DWB replied and said that after examining the page, he's concluded that pretty much everything he considered adding had already been added throughout the article. I think I'm going to spend a bit of time getting the extenuating issues taken care of. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 00:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Following the DWB comment you just linked, I think that the question posed by him is valid: "Reasons why the character was designed the way he is?" Whether this is done in an Analysis, Themes, or Background section is up to you, though it deserves a section of its own. When I previously mentioned background as a separate section, it seems we were talking past each other so here it is in short form: Ridley Scott's conception of the character of David was predated by his conception of the Ash character in the original Alien film, and that original conception of Ash in 1979 influenced the way Scott constructed the character of David for these two more recent prequel films. Historically, the Ash character preceded the David character by three decades along with Ash's sometimes helpful and sometimes harmful behavior toward the crew there, and Ash's bleeding white blood (lubricant) just like David/Walter, etc. That is part of the reason a Analysis/Themes/Background section (following DWBs comment) would be useful, and similar in its own way to the Monk article you mentioned before and its appeal. Regarding your just now re-drafting the prequel summaries for the two David films, your writing is on target and my only comment there is on the chronology of events for David in Covenant, which should not be dependent on the out-of-sequence presentation in film. David has bombed the Engineers before the Covenant crew lands on the planet, and I think your chronology should reflect this in an article about David as a fictional character. Your current version covers the reveals in the filmed sequence as presented in the film, which only reveals David bombing the Engineers well after the fact. Separately, the way you added the Scott quote about David hating the Engineers from Empire magazine is on the mark and quite effective. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see what you mean by "Background"... Ah yes, I have been quite confused! I could look at compiling something of that sorts. Also, changing things to be chronological should not be an issue. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 04:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 1.2 Casting
 * The comparison to Rachel is significant here though possibly for a different section other than Casting. In Runner all of the 'replicants' had red blood as I recall, though David and Ash seem to have white blood (lubricant) instead of red blood. The comparison to O'Toole is also interesting, though Fassbender is bringing a different originality to his David, and to his Walter, than is suggested by either Peter O'Toole or Rutger Hauer in their film roles.
 * I added a bit about David's blonde appearance, which DWB requested. I believe that speaks to that originality you were hoping to hear about. Apparently, Ridley Scott wanted an "otherworldly" appearance with the character, on top of the T.E. Lawrence connection. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 01:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 2 Appearances
 * There is no text under this section title just like your section one above. Possibly something about the appearance of androids in films generally could be related to David's appearance in these two films might help. Possibly comparing him to the appearance of Ash in 1979 might be of interest to readers.


 * 2.1 Prometheus
 * That's a very long opening sentence to this section which might be divided into two sentences. I'm not sure a synopsis of the plot is really needed here, which you seem to be following, since the film articles already provide these plot summaries. Both this section and the next one might gain more meaning if they took the standpoint of the character development of David in the film, and how his character develops from the start of the film to the end of the film, for example, 'David becomes more suspicious because of something', or 'David becomes more malevolent because of something else', etc.
 * I've had a shot at this subsection. Let me know what you think. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 01:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 02:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 2.2 Alien: Covenant
 * See comments for Prometheus section above. Comparison of David's character development to Walter's character development seems to be significant to the success of this section. Its seems clear from the interactions between David and Walter that their programming is very different and they have significantly differing objectives and protocols. Scott has stated that in Covenant, that David "hates the Engineers, and he hates humans", which can not be said of Walter, etc. Also, David in Covenant seems very different from David in Prometheus is an emphasis which might be worth developing in this section.
 * I've had a shot at this subsection. Let me know what you think. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 01:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 02:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 2.3 Other appearances
 * The marketing appearances and anecdotal appearances might need to be named as such if that's what they are presenting. David for Scott appears to be in a line of androids which will eventually be replaced by Ash as the superior model once the prequels catch up with the original plot line. By the 1979 Alien film, David appears to be gone, destroyed, or replaced. David's only contribution by the time the plotline arrives at the original Alien film plotline is that his mutagen experiments created the Alien monster who eventually gives Ripley and her crew a hard time. David and Walter and their clones all seem to be replaced by Scott's Ash android at the end of the Scott directed film series.


 * 3' Character analysis/themes/background (see Monk article example)
 * New section following discussion above and DWB comment, to be discussed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 3.1' Analysis/themes/background (between 1-3 items)
 * New section following discussion above and DWB comment, to be discussed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What I'm doing is starting with a Background subsection that goes before the Creation subsection. As a way to kick it off, I have taken the first couple sentences about shipboard synthetics and applied it. I may take a little time with this, as the other pages that describe Scott's AI influences don't dive in too much further than his appreciation for Turing Tests. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 00:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good approach. A few years ago there were some articles about Scott's appreciation of Turing Tests in the context of Voigt-Kamp from Blade Runner if its of possible interest here: . Just ping me when you are ready to continue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I created one hell of a background section, if I may say so myself! D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 22:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That new section is both well-researched and well-written. It is sufficiently strong that you might consider pushing it up in your outline to be a stand alone section at the top of the article right after the lead section. I'll ask you to check your wording for "biorobotic androids" since I think that the old film meant the replicants to be "enhanced bioengineered humanoids" since they had human blood, human fingerprints, and human dna; the only thing that made them different was that they had no memories to form emotions which the Voight-Kampf could then detect. Separately, I'll mention that it might be nice to add an image or two with this new section, something like an image of Ash as the original thought in Scott's mind that brought about his conception of David, or maybe adding an image of Scott himself as the creator of this fictional character. Let me know what you decide and ping me when you are ready to continue. The article looks significantly enhanced with this new section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Now, DWB does not believe at this juncture that an analysis section will be necessary, as he sees the content as already being in the article. I'd like to hear what you'd like to have modified next. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 07:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 3 Reception
 * No text under this section title. Possibly something on comparing the reception of the character development of David in Prometheus in comparison to Covenant might make a useful introduction to this section.


 * 3.1 Critical reception
 * This section is well-written and it seems it could be extended to be a little longer. There have been at least four dozen reviews of Fassbender's performance which covered more ground than is currently summarized in this section. The reception to David in Prometheus was different than the reception of David in Covenant.


 * 3.2 Awards
 * Fassbender is clearly emerging from your article as the star of these prequel films, though his award recognition status seems limited by the lack of box office success in both of the prequel films. Some mention should be made that Fassbender's good acting reviews seem to be limited by the lack of box office success in both films.

A general comment will note that there is no Background section in this article right after the lead section which I think might benefit this article. There is really no precedent for a peer reviewed article of an actor portraying an android, although there are many regular articles to look at including HAL 9000, C3PO, R2D2, Pinocchio, Ash (Alien) and the films for Simone and Ex Machina. These are all non-peer review quality. If you include a Background section you could look at the article for Artificial intelligence in fiction and indicate where David fits in the general literature on this subject, following Scott as a dystopian perhaps, or as a servant for mankind, etc. Scott has dedicated a large part of his career to artificially implanted intelligence in androids and replicants since Blade Runner which could be covered as being useful in a Background section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll get on this at the soonest convenience. The fixes you've suggested are actually not out of reach and can be accommodated without too much of a hassle. I feel confident we'll have this as a Good Article soon. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 06:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. I should be around for most of the coming week. Just ping me when you have the sections ready and you are ready to continue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Any updates before the week-end starts? JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at which way to stab at this article. I could consider a background section, though there likely would not be much beyond saying that there were seven David models before the one at hand was crafted. Tell me, could you provide me with info on the themes from the Prometheus article that you see correlation to? I didn't copy-paste from any article, but I did look for relevant ones to expand off of and I was sure I had knocked all the ones that there was some correlation to in it. Mind you, I do want to have this article follow its own path and not be an explicit road map born from the Adrian Monk article-- I believe Darkwarriorblake's idea will complete it. No disrespect, of course, when I say that, as I'm looking for the best article that Wikipedia could hope for with the subject matter. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 00:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Either one of those approaches I think will work here; either you can have a background section like the Monk article at the end of your article here, or, if you want to follow your own lights then a short background section at the top of this article could readily cover the material I suggested previously. The Prometheus article seems to have 4-5 citations in the first or second paragraph of its themes section which covers David and I don't think you have all of those citations here. The Covenant article also has a quote of Scott somewhere saying something like "David hates everybody and everything", which should be included here since Scott is the source. I'll ask that you consider covering Scott's dystopian view as it occurs in nearly all of his sci-fi films as it relates to David, and looking at Artificial intelligence in fiction would make this easy for you to do in this article here. You can ask DWB to bring his material in whenever you or he feels its the best time to do so in this article. My last comment for now will just mention that David as a fictional character was left on a complete cliffhanger at the end of Covenant which should be emphasized somewhat in this article, and David disappearing by the time Ash comes around later in the series deserves some note because Scott keeps telling his audience that the 1979 Alien film is where all of these prequels end up. What you say sounds good so far and just ping me when you are ready to continue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding this link to an article from last week-end in addition from my note from yesterday about reassessment of the continuation of the franchise by 20th Century here . JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your addition in the Covenant section clears up the chronological timeline there. You can decide on two optional plot points and then move forwards; First, in Prometheus there is a significant conversation between Shaw and David which you do not cover which goes something like this. Shaw asks David: "What will you do when Weyland is no longer around", and David answers: "I imagine I will know what it is to be free"; followed by Shaw's follow-up with David's rhetorical answer, "Well, doesn't everyone hope for their parents to be dead?" Its your decision if you decide to leave it in or out though it does telegraph into the Covenant section. On your Covenant summary, the only optional emphasis is on the David cliffhanger at the end of the film where no one knows what David is planning to do with his 2000 experimental specimen colonists which David now has in stasis. Looking forward to moving ahead to the next section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe I've made the necessary adjustments. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 01:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good for those two sections, you might want to double check your wording on this one: "Shaw asks David converse..." Otherwise, I'll look forward to seeing the next section when you have it ready. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Concluding comments
After a reading of your new changes, it looks like the article is there. You have likely heard that there is a dvd release planned for the recent new film later this month with lots of special features including a two hour voice-over for the film by Scott, which you might like to watch for any new David material. Here is one of multiple deleted scenes from the new dvd release coming out later this month:. You might want to check your wording here for a possible missing word I have marked in parenthesis: 'child's dream (of) having their parents dead.' A recent Scott interview has him stating that in the next prequel film he is planning, that he would like to have some of the Engineers who have been away from their home planet return home to find its population destroyed, followed by their anguished response to the results of David's destructive actions. As a textual note, you might consider switching to ndash with no space to give your article's emphasized passages a consistency which looks more like what is seen in the well-liked New Yorker magazine format. It looks like this '–' rather than a regular hyphen '-' which you have used in this article. The new image of Scott you have added looks good, as do the other images in the article, and this article checks all the boxes for promotion. Good editing. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)