Talk:Space Seed/GA1

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 22:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Images

 * OK. Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why no image in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no free use image currently available and a fair use image wouldn't be necessary to explain something that went on in the episode. We've been getting quite lucky of late with free use images for Star Trek gradually becoming available (such as the one of Spock, Kirk and McCoy later on) and we've even got a suitable one for "Spock's Brain" but so far nothing Khan related. Miyagawa (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

 * What's the status of adding an image to the lead? I realize that it was probably deleted by an overzealous admin, but why don't we have an image here? Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Episode number mismatch with lead. 24 or 22?  See lead below. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Production code	023/024[n 1]
 * I'm still not happy with this (per the discussion at the bottom of the page). If we can't verify why the authors believe it is 23 and not 24 (no explanation as of yet) then it could very well be an error. Have you looked at the dates of the production? Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead
it is either the 23rd or 24th episode of the first season depending on sources 
 * It's 1x24 sorted by production or 1x22 sorted by original airdate. I don't know how the ST project sorts their episodes, but pick one; there's no need to talk about how to determine it in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed myself. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The general plot had originally been created by Wilber for the series Captain Video and His Video Rangers which featured humans from Ancient Greece who were preserved in cryogenic suspension and resurrected.
 * Why is this in the first paragraph when the development and production is discussed in the third paragraph? Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved it to the start of the third paragraph. This left the first one rather light, so I merged it with the second - resulting in three paragraphs of roughly similar size. Miyagawa (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Very nice! Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Plot

 * during Earth's last great world conflict
 * I'm not convinced World War needs to be linked here. However, if there is a link to the ST war (it's around somewhere) you could add that instead. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it as overlinking; this is already linked in the Eugenics Wars and World War III link that follows. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The male occupant begins to revive, but his stasis cell begins to fail; he is taken back to Enterprise for a medical examination.
 * Back to the Enterprise. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Kirk has Botany Bay taken in tow by a tractor beam, and Enterprise sets course for Starbase 12.
 * Kirk has the Botany Bay taken in tow by a tractor beam, and the Enterprise sets course for Starbase 12. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 *  At end of the Eugenics Wars, between eighty and ninety of them were unaccounted for; Khan is recorded the most dangerous of these warriors.
 * At the end of the Eugenics Wars. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Khan tells her he means to rule mankind again and needs her help to take over Enterprise.
 * To take over the Enterprise. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Khan throws Kirk into a decompression tank, and threatens to slowly suffocate him unless Kirk's command crew agree to follow Khan.
 * Agree to follow Khan, or agree to follow him? Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't sound correct with "agree to follow Khan" but I was worried that with "agree to follow him" it sounds like the crew were meant to follow Kirk into the decompression chamber. Miyagawa (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 *  Kirk decides that Khan and his followers should be exiled, and picks Ceti Alpha V, a dangerous world that Kirk believes would be a perfect place for Khan to start his kingdom over again.
 * A "dangerous" world? I'm not convinced that is the best word here.  The quote is "habitable, although a bit savage, somewhat inhospitable".  I don't think "dangerous" is a good fit. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made those edits to the plot as per above - and dropped dangerous from the line. Miyagawa (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Production

 * Writer Carey Wilber was hired to write a single spec script for an episode of Star Trek, which he later explained had been based on the plot of an episode he had written for the television series Captain Video and His Video Rangers.
 * Let's maintain an historical perspective by making use of dates. For example, this episode is from 1967 but Captain Video and His Video Rangers aired from 1949 to 1955.  So in this instance, list the production as Captain Video and His Video Rangers (1949-1955). Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Miyagawa (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just read the first paragraph again. It's highly convoluted and unnecessarily confusing.  For example, the first sentence says, "Writer Carey Wilber was hired to write a single spec script for an episode of Star Trek".  Well, that makes no sense.  A spec script is a "non-commissioned unsolicited screenplay".  Please return to your source. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Now fixed by User:Sir Rhosis. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Notes were given to Wilber at the start of September with several suggested changes including the removal of a reference to the series setting as the producers did not want to say how far in the future that Star Trek was set, and to remove the chess scene.
 * "In September, Wilber was given a list of suggested changes asking him to remove any mention of the setting, as the producers did not want to say how far in the future Star Trek was set, and to remove the chess scene." Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He had been suggested by casting director Joseph D’Agosta, who was not looking at casting an actor of a particular ethnic background due to Roddenberry's vision for the series.
 * This "vision" and it's relationship to not choosing an actor based on a particular ethnicity isn't clear to the reader. Either briefly explain it or add an annotation explaining it. Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a new annotation to explain it. Miyagawa (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 *  "Space Seed" also saw a continued push and more prominent role for James Doohan in his role of Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott following positive feedback both from the producers and the network.
 * I tried to copyedit this but the original meaning isn't clear. Did a more prominent role for Doohan result from his feedback in this episode, or did previous good feedback result in a more prominent role in this episode?  That's not clear. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've copy edited - hopefully it should be clearer now. Miyagawa (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Reception

 * Several reviewers re-watched the episodes after the end of the series.
 * I realize this is boilerplate you usually add to contemporary episodes, but the reviewers in this case "re-watched" the episode 42 years later! I'm not sure it makes any sense to say they re-watched it after the end of the series in this context. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've dropped it - it's pretty much only been used in the newer series like TNG - I think that the only TOS episode it's appeared in so far might have been "The Trouble With Tribbles" which doesn't really make it a standard thing! Miyagawa (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In Mark Pickavance's review at Den of Geek, he said that the update to it on DVD showed that it remained an "obvious choice of great source material" to be followed up on film.
 * I don't have a clue as to what that sentence is supposed to mean. Please try to rewrite it. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed and redrafted it partially. Miyagawa (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The pair were researching the Star Trek archives and presented insights into the production both on a touring presentation and on the official Star Trek website.
 * This almost makes sense, however, it reads poorly. Please rewrite it for clarity. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've redrafted it. Miyagawa (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I deleted it as it seems out of place in the critical reception section. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Home media release

 * The episode was included in the remastered season one release on DVD and Blu-Ray in 2009.
 * "season one" looks strange here. Isn't the convention "Season 1", as in "The episode was included in the remastered Season 1 release on DVD and Blu-Ray in 2009"? Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

 * The events of "Space Seed" had a direct sequel in the 1982 film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
 * I find this wording very odd. I'm not used to seeing "X had a direct sequel in Y".  I'm also not certain that it is accurate to describe it in this way.  Are there other, more accurate terms to describe the relationship between the two stories?  I don't see this as a "direct sequel".  For me,  "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan'' (1982) followed up 15 years later after "Space Seed". I could be wrong, but I think the term "sequel" is reserved for specific types of films. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've modified it in a similar way to your suggestion. Miyagawa (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Montalbán was concerned about resuming the role of Khan, as he was worried that the fans would see him only as Mr. Roarke from Fantasy Island, but felt that he managed to recapture the character by re-watching "Space Seed".
 * That sentence is a bit long in the tooth. Also, which fans is  Montalbán referring to here, ST fans? "Concerned about resuming the role of Khan, Montalbán worried that fans would see him only as Mr. Roarke from Fantasy Island. However, he felt that he managed to recapture the character by re-watching 'Space Seed'." Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The film set a new record at the time for the opening weekend gross with $14.3 million taken. The film went on to take $78.9 million domestically within the United States, which was the sixth best selling film of the year.
 * Do you really need to say "at the time" here? "Star Trek II set a new record for the opening weekend gross with $14.3 million taken. The film went on to take $78.9 million domestically within the United States, which was the sixth best selling film of the year."  I'm not sure how relevant that is to an article on "Space Seed", but it is acceptable in terms of legacy, I guess. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed as suggested. That was my thoughts on it's inclusion too. Miyagawa (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Annotations

 * Listed as Production Code 024 on StarTrek.com; Cushman & Osborn (p. 443) gives this number as 023, noting 'incorrectly listed in many sources' as 024.
 * It's listed as production code 24 everywhere. I think Cushman & Osborn are confused.  It's episode 22 of the season—startrek and memory-alpha sites concur—but only 23 if you sort by original airdate.  I haven't read the book, so I don't know why they are doing that. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Cushman/Osborn source is pretty much the definitive one, it was only published last year but they've been writing it for the last twenty years or so based on the original Roddenberry records. They have scans of internal memos etc in the book, and if they say that it's actually number 23 then it is as they'll have access to all the various documentation to say in what order the episodes were produced. Not sure why so many sources list it as #24. Miyagawa (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Further note - Marc Cushman is being given a Saturn Award for his work on the series, there's an article about it here. Miyagawa (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, it's the 22nd episode in the series, the 23rd episode to air, and the 24th production. This means, essentially, TOS did not air nor produce the episodes in order.  Now, the question becomes, does the ST project list the episodes in order, by air date, or by production number?  It's not either 22, 23, or 24—all those numbers are valid in their proper context.  I hope we are clear on that. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is counted as the 22nd episode, but sources disagree on whether it was the 23rd or 24th to be produced. You're quite right, TOS didn't air or produce the episodes in the expected order (the first season was an utter mess for this, especially at the start). Miyagawa (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's figure this out so that others don't have to. I don't see any sources that dispute "Space Seed" as production 24.  It's only the 23rd episode in order of airdate, and I believe also stardate.  My understanding is that they weren't intended to be counted that way, so I don't understand the Cushman contention.  In other words, what is the reason your source disputes the production number? Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Um... I'm not entirely sure. It actually states in the Cushman source about other sources giving a different number. Admittedly I never actually bothered to check, I just took the source at face value. But like you say, if the other sources don't exist then we can just list it as production code 23. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's just drop this for now and come back to it after I finish the review. Thanks for discussing it. Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Criteria
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Lead: OK.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Need to verify claims.
 * Verified. Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold awaiting minor changes in the reception and production sections. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article now passes. In closing, I'm still not happy with the Cushman & Osborn annotation because it makes an assertion without any substantiating evidence.  For example, it should say why the production number is wrong and point to the correct number.  If it doesn't do this, or if the editor hasn't researched the problem in the source, then it is my opinion that the note doesn't help the reader. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Need to verify claims.
 * Verified. Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold awaiting minor changes in the reception and production sections. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article now passes. In closing, I'm still not happy with the Cushman & Osborn annotation because it makes an assertion without any substantiating evidence.  For example, it should say why the production number is wrong and point to the correct number.  If it doesn't do this, or if the editor hasn't researched the problem in the source, then it is my opinion that the note doesn't help the reader. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article now passes. In closing, I'm still not happy with the Cushman & Osborn annotation because it makes an assertion without any substantiating evidence.  For example, it should say why the production number is wrong and point to the correct number.  If it doesn't do this, or if the editor hasn't researched the problem in the source, then it is my opinion that the note doesn't help the reader. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)