Talk:Kazon/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 00:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Claiming this one now as I'm keen to review it; I've been watching through Voyager on Netflix over the last few months. I'll hopefully get to looking through the article in the next couple of days. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Though if anyone else wants to comment in the mean time, they are of course welcome to do so! Josh Milburn (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, some first comments:
 * I can't approve of the current infobox, as this isn't an article about a character. We have Template:Infobox fictional race, but it's not the best infobox I've ever seen. The other option is no infobox at all.
 * I decided to go without an infobox, but I am open to further suggestion if you believe a different approach is better. I am also not a big fan of the the infobox for a fictional race in this instance, as a lot of the categories would be left blank since they were never addressed in the context of the Kazon. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether it might be better to frame them (I'm thinking about the opening line of the lead as much as anything) as a species in the Star Trek universe, rather than a species from Voyager, especially as they appear in Star Trek Online.
 * Changed to Star Trek franchise. I originally just had Voyager as I did not know that the Kazon were included in Star Trek Online until I was further developing the article and I forgot to go back and adjust the lead accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Voyager's writing team dedicate a large portion of season two to the development of the alien species, with Piller writing a paper on them that would be used for the development of the Kazon-centric episodes." Why present tense?
 * No reason other than a silly mistake. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "who overstayed their welcomes" A little informal
 * Revised, let me know if that works. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The lack of a link to anything about the Vidiians in the lead is jarring, and Vidiian currently redirects to a particular episode article. Perhaps you could add them to List of Star Trek races and change the direction of the redirect to provide a link? (I appreciate that this is a bit "above and beyond" for the purposes of GAC, but I thought I'd suggest it anyway.)
 * Good idea, and I can't believe I forgot the add them to the lead so thank you for the reminder. I will definitely add them to the List of Star Trek races sometime by the end of the night. I was thinking of developing an article about them anyway so it works out perfectly lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I created a rather brief paragraph about the Phage in the list and redirected the word "Vidiian" to that rather than the episode. Let me know if this is okay. I may come back in the future and make an article for them as there appears to be plenty of background/production information to warrant one. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Introduced in the series premiere "Caretaker", they are introduced" Repetition
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "to have completed poor business deals" Poor for the Kazon, perhaps, but surely not for him?
 * Removed "poor" as I agree with your comment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "due to the fear of upsetting the power dynamics in the Delta Quadrant" Could we get a link to Prime Directive somewhere?
 * Revised it with a link to the Prime Directive. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * " In the episode, ensign Seska (Martha Hackett) is revealed to be a Cardassian undercover agent who was secretly funneling information to the Kazon" We need more here, I think. That Seska was a Cardassian agent is only distantly related to the fact she was talking to the Kazon.
 * Revised and expanded this so it is clearer. I see what you mean as the fact that she is a Cardassian undercover agent is connected to sneaking into the Maquis cell and not the Kazon at all. Thank you for bringing this up. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "For the second season, Chakotay (Robert Beltran) and Seska are the primary characters involved in the Kazon storylines." Is this OR?
 * Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "who were imprisoned by the Kazon" Were they imprisoned? I thought they were merely (supposedly) persecuted?
 * I think the Kazon actually imprisoned the Trabe in the episode "Alliances", but outside of that, it gets a little murky at best so I think persecuted is a much better choice of words. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "the Trabe enslaved the Kazon in the past" Is this said explicitly?
 * In the episode "Alliances", a Trabe governor Mabus said the following about the past treatment of the Kazon by the Trabe: "The Trabe treated them like animals, fenced them in, encouraged them to fight amongst themselves so they wouldn't turn on us, and sat by while they turned into a violent, angry army" amongst other things and Janeway referred to it directly as "holding another culture in virtual slavery". I think that these lines of dialogue explicitly support this, but let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's quite enough. I suspect there is a ghettoisation analogy to be drawn. How about something like "The Trabe limited the Kazon's movements, resulting in them fighting among themselves rather than challenging Trabe supremacy"? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me; I do agree after re-watching the episode that the "slavery" language is far too strong and problematic for inclusion here. I really like the way that you copy-edited; thank you for that. Aoba47 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a mention of Michael Jonas by name would be appropriate?
 * Added him and a brief description of his actions and death. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the stuff about Star Trek: Online belongs in a separate section? I note that it talks about sects, although these aren't introduced until the next section.
 * Moved the stuff about "Star Trek: Online" to near the paragraph discussing the different sects. Let me know if this is okay or if it should be moved elsewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that's what's occurring to me so far. Hope I'm not being too picky! I'll be back for more soon. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! I really appreciate that you went thoroughly through the article and provided such constructive feedback. I wrote a majority of this in the span of two to three days so I apologize for the silly mistakes in there. I will address your comments by the end of today if that is okay with you. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear; that's only what's come out at me from the first two sections. I've only skim-read the rest, so will be back with more detailed comments in due course! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And let me know if it is okay to address the comments. I look forward to reading your further comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "the species is composed of eighteen sects" Maybe I'm wrong here, but was the idea not that the sects were changing so frequently that it was impossible to count them?
 * That is what I thought from the show as well (the series was pretty vague about this). I decided to include this information from the following source (here) since it is coming from the Star Trek official website. Let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "When Anthony De Longis first saw the headdress worn as a part of Culluh's costume, he joked that: "Culluh must be the leader because he has the biggest head of hair"." Great fact, but I wonder whether it belongs in this "in-universe" section?
 * True, I added it there as I was trying to make a connection with the "leader" stuff, but I agree that it fits better elsewhere. I have added it to the "Design and casting" subsection. Aoba47 (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've moved the discussion of Star Trek: Online; what do you think? Also, it seems that the Kazon appeared in some spin-off novels. An acknowledgement of this, even if only a line, would be good!
 * Thank you! That is much better; I am not sure why I didn't think about doing that lol. I honestly didn't know that the Kazon appeared in spin-off novels. I will do some research on this and add it in to the "Other appearances" subsection. Aoba47 (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added information about the novels with the Kazon that I could find. Let me know if I missed anything. Aoba47 (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Even though the Kazon are the only classified species that the Borg refuses to assimilate" Plonking this in comes across as OR.
 * The information is listed in the source given for the sentence here (source) in the following line: "The Kazon are the only species that the Borg declined to assimilate." Aoba47 (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "While discussing the Kazon's original inspiration, Taylor said that she felt the alien race reflected contemporary fears about gangs and viewed them as a way "to address the tenor of our times and what [...] was happening in our cities and recognizing a source of danger and social unrest" through metaphor" This doesn't flow well; there's a tense shift.
 * Simplified the sentence so hopefully that solves it, let me know if it needs more work. Aoba47 (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, pausing again. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for taking the review and sorry for any inconvenience. Aoba47 (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Westmore found the Kazon to be the most demanding species in the Voyager's first season. He clarified that the make-up and prosthetic work for Voyager was easier than Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. He explained this by comparing the relatively small amount of Kazon who appeared in episodes outside of the pilot to the various species featured throughout Deep Space Nine.[43] For the second episode in which the Kazon appeared ("State of Flux"), Westmore removed the ear prosthetics, originally created by hair designer Josée Normand to look like those of a pig. The pig ear prosthetics proved to be too cumbersome and heavy for the actors and stunt doubles, and its material was changed to a more light-weight sponge.[37]" Why does this belong in the direction section?
 * I put this information in this section as I felt that it explained how make-up and prosthetic work for the Kazon evolved and changed during the directing and production of the epsides, but I can change this if you would prefer. I could add the stuff about the make-up and prosthetic work to the previous subsection if you feel it fits that better. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, why is that called "direction" at all?
 * I wanted the section to focus on the evolution of the Kazon during the filming and development of the first two seasons. I have changed it to "Filming and development" to better reflect that, but let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "He explained: "If you think about it, traveling for a year-and-a-half through a part of space dominated by one group is pretty amazing!" when compared to the size of the United Federation of Planets and the Klingon Empire." I don't think this reads well; is the claim that this would leave Kazon space bigger than Federation and Klingon space?
 * I revised this so it would be more clear. Let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Pausing again. Please do check my copyedits.
 * Thank you again for your help. And I always make sure to check over your edits. You have made the article a lot better so thank you for that! Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about the heavy reliance on secondary sources. If you look down the reference list, footnotes 1-24 are primary, Poe is arguably primary, Gross and Altman is not primary but is being used to cite the views of those involved. The only sources I'm happy calling secondary are Starlog, Den of Geek (a blog), Tor.com, Io9, The Robot Voice (reliable?) and perhaps TrekToday/Jammer's Reviews. Many of these are a long way from ideal. There is loads of scholarly literature on Star Trek; admittedly, the Kazon may be mostly ignored, as they aren't (dare I say!) the most interesting species. There's some pretty extensive discussion here which seems reputable; there's an article about the journal (I'm not sure if it's peer reviewed or not) on the German Wikipedia: Medienimpulse. I'm seeing some interesting looking hits on things I don't have access to (at the very least, The Politics of Star Trek belongs in a further reading section; there's loads in that). Looking through some newspaper clippings, there's this:

"With their ever more elaborate backgrounds, aliens in "Star Trek" can represent exaggerated human tendencies, like the ultracapitalist Ferengi (the Shylocks of space) or the enzyme-addicted Jem 'Hadar troops, crackheads in uniform. Or they can suggest ethnic and political groups. The Bajorans, with their religious rituals, caste system, pierced ears and newly won freedom from the Cardassian Empire, might be Indians or Palestinians. The Kazon, with their endlessly warring sects and hatred for former colonial overseers, could be a more powerful Somalia or Rwanda." - Pareles, Jon (May 26, 1996). "Television view; When aliens start to look a lot like us". New York Times, Arts and Leisure Desk. p. 26.

Maybe some bits worth incorporating? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links and I will start incorporating some more secondary sources. Thank you for drawing this to my attention. I will do some more research and try to get this done by the end of the day. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help so far! I greatly appreciate your very thorough feedback. I have deleted the "The Robot's Voice" source as I agree that it is not the best source, and I have seen the other sources (Starlog, Den of Geek (a blog), Tor.com, Io9, and TrekToday/Jammer's Reviews) used in GA and FA Star Trek articles on here. I have added more academic/book sources. I incorporated them in the "Characteristics" section and also found enough sources to add a "Racial criticism" subsection to the "Reception" section. Let me know if there is anything else that I could. I added information from the The Politics of Star Trek source (his take on the show as a metaphor for the developing world/Third World is pretty interesting actually). I have looked for further scholarly sources, but could not find anything else new. Thank you again and sorry my long response. Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's great to hear! I agree that the sources listed are OK to use, but they're no real substitute for academic analysis or critical discussion in high-profile newspapers and magazines. I don't think that anyone could now dispute that the Kazon have received attention in good secondary literature, though eyebrows could be raised about the article's heavy reliance on primary (somewhat primary?) sources. I do hope to look at the article further, but I'd prefer to continue doing it piecemeal- I don't have as much time for Wikipedia editing as I did in the past. In particular, I'd like to go through all the new additions, go through the article as a whole to make sure it flows well, and think further on what kinds of things need to be pushed before a promotion to GA and what can be let slide (i.e., the difference between the GA criteria and FA criteria). I hope this sounds amenable to you? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds perfect, thank you again for your help! Take as much time as you need. I agree that academic analysis or critical discussion in high-profile newspapers and magazines is always the best type of source, and I feel that the article was improved a lot through their inclusion. Also, thank you for retitling the "Response" section and subsection as the new titles are much more appropriate and representative of the content. I will also be doing some c/e of the new material that I have added if that is alright with you. I would love to bring this to FAC someday in the future after a lot more revisions and copyediting. Quick question: I was thinking about adding information about merchandise that was released relating the Kazon after looking at the article for Flood). I was wondering where do you think this information should be added? Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience. I think this article will be ready for GA status soon, but I caution that I think FA status may be an uphill battle. The writing isn't stellar in places (nothing that can't be sorted out in time, but worth noting) and I think questions would be raised about a reliance on primary sources. There are also questions about OR/SYNTH norms which may raise some questions. There are a few other issues which may get some attention (article structure, image use, and things I no doubt haven't even noticed). To be clear, I think this article's a great addition to the project and something to be proud of, but it'd be a tough one to get to FA, I think. At least, I'd recommend taking it to peer review to get the input of a few others (Miyagawa and Mike Christie might be willing to comment). Anyway- I'm looking again at the article, and will be making changes and leaving comments below as I go. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought that this would be the case; I know that this article will take a lot of work before I even consider putting it up for FAC. I definitely will go through it and ask for help in the future about it and put it up for peer review sometime in the future. Thank you again for your help as you have definitely improved the article a lot. Hope you are having a great day. Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Last few things:
 * The critical reception section doesn't look quite right at the moment. You open with the characterisation that critics didn't like them (surely correct) but then start talking about them appearing in "best of" lists. Perhaps try to restructure and massage the prose a little? Thematic arrangement would be valuable; at the moment, it has something of a "list of stuff people said" quality. (I'm being picky, here; it's certainly not poor, it's just not what it could be.) Also: "Green later positively reviewed the Kazon storylines as "less dragged out" than she originally thought during her first viewing" Is that really positive?
 * That is true. I have attempted to reorganize the section; let me know what you think. I have not edited/revised this section since originally writing and I have the same issues with it that you have raised. I agree that the "less dragged out" is a stretch so I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd lose the Diversity Chronicle and maybe Bitch Media stuff. At the very least, I'd downplay the Bitch Media source, and frame it as a "similar" view to that of Christina Niculescu and Yonit Nemtzeanu. More from Gonzalez would be fantastic, if there is any.
 * Removed Diversity Chronicle and downplayed Bitch Media as suggested. There is not much more from the Gonzalez source that was not already covered in the section. Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Once these are looked into, I think we'll be ready to promote. The article's certainly not perfect, but it's looking good. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that came out more pessimistic than I meant it to: The article's looking great, and while there are a few things which I think would stop it from being suitable for FAC at this time, I think it will make a very nice GA. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, it is best to be realistic. I would like to bring this to FAC some day in the future, but I understand that it will require more work before that can happen and I have no immediate plans for taking this to FAC. I have requested a copy-edit of this from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors so that will be helpful. I will most likely take a break from revising this article so I can look at this with a fresh pair of eyes and see mistakes or problematic areas that I have overlooked. I will also contact Miyagawa and Mike Christie sometime in the future for some help (though I do feel really bad for always asking Mike Christie for help), and will possibly open a peer review for this (I have had mixed experiences with peer review though) I am proud of turning this redirect into a GA, especially since I wrote the first draft of this over the course of two-three days. Thank you for your thorough review and I look forward to working with you in the future. Anyway, sorry for the long message. Thank you for your help and I have made the corrections. Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I know notability is (surprisingly) not a GA criteria, but I hope you'll be able to answer my question at Talk:Kazon. Because no matter how well this is written, etc., if this is not notable we have a big problem. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, but I disagree with your comment that the sources only contain "passing" mentions to the subject matter. All of the sources in the "Critical response" and "Racial and political" analysis subsections discuss the Kazon beyond a minor reference. For instance, the Gonzalez source discusses the Kazon in depth in his analysis of the show. The subject was discussed in the New York Times as well. Even the articles that include the Kazon as a part of a list include a paragraph of information on them that goes beyond that off a minor reference. The use of a scholarly source by Christina Niculescu and Yonit Nemtzeanu also asserts their notability. I also asserted that all of the sources in the "Bibliography" subsection of the "Sources" section shows notability by including extensive out-of-universe information on their development. I think that the sources provided safely show that this passes as notable enough for its own article. Let me know what you think and  though. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could have this discussion on the article talk page rather than here? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, though, I will hold off promotion until this is resolved. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article talk page is probably the more appropriate page for this discussion and thank you for the notice. I have also left a reply to your message on the talk page. I apologize for the inconvenience relating this article and for taking a lot of your time with it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it; we can take as long as is needed. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

A thought: Doesn't Tom Paris pretend to defect to the Kazon? I think this would be worth mentioning. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot remember exactly at the moment so I will look into it. I just wanted to make the section dealing their appearance/storylines on the show as streamlined as possible, but I will add in a small bit about it later today if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added the section in, thank you for catching this. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Random Comment: Just had a look as part of the notability discussion and noticed that you appear to have two listings for the Star Trek: Voyager Companion under bibliography - including one by Mike Okuda, who didn't write it. I presume you've transposed the wrong book title here, but I'm not sure what it is to fix it. Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching this. I made a few mistakes here (I wrote a majority of this over two days so I apologize for messing up a lot of things) I have put in the correct source in the bibliography. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Also... was there nothing in A Vision of the Future? I haven't checked my copy specifically for it, but I would have thought that the Kazon would have been mentioned a fair bit since it concentrates on the seasons up till the Borg appear. Potentially you might be able to swap out some of the primary sources with it. Miyagawa (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My Poe citations were actually referencing that book and I was stupid and put the wrong one in the bibliography. I have corrected this. Thank you for catching this again. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * And... Sorry, I keep adding stuff. This time it might be actually useful -, The Fifty Year Mission part 2 actually adds some interesting stuff you don't have in the article at the moment, and fortunately you can preview the relevant pages on Google Books. Kicks in at page 595 and gets interesting - seems the arc in season 2 was devised by Piller following his experience on Legend. Miyagawa (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. I should be apologizing for my late response and missing this in my first version. Thank you for the link and I will start incorporating information from that source now. I will put a message on here when I am done. Aoba47 (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Added! Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Promoting
This has been a fairly unusual review, but I'm happy to promote the article at this time. I think it makes for a solid GA, even if it might have question marks which will need to be resolved before a FAC nomination. Personally, I think it might be better to focus instead on writing other articles about Voyager. Other races which are plausibly notable, including the Vidiians, Talaxians, Ocampa, Hirogen and Malon, all lack articles, and, dare I say, our articles about Voyager episodes are almost invariably not great. I'd be happy to pick up other Voyager articles to review at GAC, and perhaps the others who have contributed here would, too. I appreciate that there's an ongoing discussion about the notability of the Kazon, but, as I read this discussion, I think we're all happy that the topic is notable, though there may be some disagreement about the extent to which it is notable. I think the next step would be an AfD nomination, but I'm not sure anyone wants to go through with that. Anyway, a pleasure to work with you, and I'm really happy with how the article's now looking. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being patient and very helpful throughout this review process. I am very proud and happy to develop it to the level of a GA, and you have definitely helped to improve the quality by a lot since my first draft. I agree that it would better to turn my attention to other articles related to the series. I will mostly likely return to this article to do improve it after taking some time away from it. I was thinking of pursuing the Vidiians as my next project, but I am probably going to take a short break as this review process took a lot out of me (in a good way). I too appreciate that there is an ongoing discussion about the notability on the talk page as it is helpful to hear from different viewpoints. It was a pleasure to work with you, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)