Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek Generations/archive1

Star Trek Generations

 * Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

In 1992/93, the producers of one of the most successful syndicated television shows ever decided to end the series after seven seasons and make a motion picture instead. The result... was thoroughly mediocre. This is Star Trek Generations. Thanks in advance for your comments and critiques. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain
I'm excited to see this here! Some initial thoughts: I'll be interested in your thoughts on these. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead seems a bit light for a film article. The sentence "Generations was conceived as a handoff from the original television series cast and their movies to The Next Generation." isn't very elegantly written and could use more context here in the lead. Do you mean the handoff of the "film franchise" (I suspect you do)? The narrative is a bit unclear since you go on to suggest that TNG was well into its production lifecycle by time this film was released. Even knowing the timeline as I do, the lead is not too cohesive.
 * I'm not entirely satisfied by the Plot summary. It's not clear from reading it what Soran's motivations are, what the nature of the Nexus is, and how Kirk and Picard ended up meeting in the Nexus. There is not enough explanation of the involvement of the Duras sisters and why they kidnapped LaForge. You call Soran the "villain" in the lead and go on to say he's obsessed with "re-entering the Nexus" but don't clearly explain how that ties in to his attempts on the refugee ships. I think his character was more complex than that and there's a lot more to say about how he uses Picard's grief to his advantage.
 * In that vein... there seems to be worthy discussion of Themes and I'd be surprised if enough wasn't written about them to formulate a good Themes section. Is there guidance within the Films wikiproject on when to include a Themes section? Suggestions would be time and mortality, family, and I'm certain I've read about the Nexus as a metaphor for substance abuse/dependency. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Laser, thanks for the comments. I've taken a stab at clarifying and expanding the lead. I've worked on the plot a little too—I'm not really sure how much you can say about Picard and Kirk meeting in the nexus because the nexus famously doesn't really make much sense, but I clarified a bit more about Soran's motivations. I don't know how much else you want about the Duras Sisters—they're kind of irrelevant to the plot and La Forge doesn't really do anything but get tortured that isn't covered. I didn't include a themes section because the literature I've found searching GScholar, JSTOR, Gale, and the other databases I have access to are pretty thin in regards to Generations. At best, they're glancing one-off mentions about Generations as an aside to their main point, nothing I've found that singularly spends much time on the film itself or its themes specifically. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 00:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take another look today. As far as the Duras sisters, I'm thinking about how they fit the recurring plot device of how Soran uses other people to get his way. So he uses Picard's grief to his advantage, and uses the Duras sisters' desire to attack the Enterprise to get them to help him obtain the trilithium... you don't mention any of that and I feel it's a major feature of the plot. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really recall Soran using Picard's grief. He asks to get back to the lab, Picard says no, he does it anyway, and Picard spends all the rest of the time they're face-to-face trying to talk him out of doing what he's doing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dang, don't you remember the "time is the fire in which we burn" speech? OK, I'm letting my Malcolm McDowell fanboy status show a bit too much. Soran knew Picard has suffered a loss and was fixated on mortality.. and used that to convince Picard to let him go back to the lab. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, it's a great line, but it doesn't lead anywhere. Picard never actually says he'll get him back on the station, no one reacts like they expected him to be there when they go to the station to evacuate Geordi and Data. Critics didn't really go on about Soran as some master manipulator, I just don't really see how it's important to understanding the broad strokes of the plot, especially since we never touch on it anywhere else in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Just an update—I was traveling last week but intend to revisit soon and update my disposition. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * *cough* Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review
Critical commentary on the film poster would bolster the fair use rationale per WP:NFCC. The other non-free image looks fine to me. Other images appear to be freely licensed. I made an edit to avoid sandwiching images. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's not really any critical commentary on the poster or its art, as far as I know. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator note
Nearly four weeks in and very little interest. I shall add it to Urgents, but I suggest that the nominator do whatever they can to attract some reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC) and 2c: "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes" This traditionally involves checking that everything that should be cited is, that the cites and the sources are correctly and consistently formatted [see note below], and doing whatever spot checks of the match of the text against the sources offered the reviewer feels appropriate. Given that the reviewer has put 51 previous nominations through FAC it would be acceptable if you felt that the number of spot checks required was zero. If that doesn't answer your question, feel free to say so.
 * I will try to look in tomorrow, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've pinged a few more people. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If editors who have expressed an interest in reviewing this do so that should be sufficient to base a consensus or lack of on. However, a source review is needed. I shall add it to the list. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been open for more than eight weeks and even though it seems to have been positively received it still lacks a source review. It is top of the source review wanted list but that has not attracted anyone. Unless a source review is started very soon I am going to have to regretfully archive this. If the nominator can think of any favours they can call in, I suggest they do so. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Gog. Would you be willing to tell me what you're looking for, for this nom? I can get to it tomorrow if there's something in particular :) It has been going on for a while! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ImaginesTigers. I would like a source reviewer to confirm, or not, that the article meets FAC criterion 1c: "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate"


 * [Note] Eg, at a glance I can see a page range using a hyphen not an en dash, some ISBNs using hyphens and some not, and some books giving publisher locations and some not. This 'is not an exhaustive list, just a, hopefully, helpful indication of the sort of thing meant by "consistently formatted". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ack!, as the Dash Maven, I am not seeing the faulty hyphen on the page range, and the script is not picking it up.  Could you point it out so we can figure out how it is foiling the script?  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cite 9. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah ha ... it is foiling the script because of the URL link on the first page; makes sense, now fixed (the script is not interpreting the first page as a number because it is a URL). The same citation has the only location I can find (New York on Beyond Uhura, Nichols). , what is the reason for that one location?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No real reason. Removed (and stripped out the URL for the page range since there's already a URL for the book itself.) Standardized the ISBNs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia
(Not a trekkie, so please overlook anything especially stupid :)
 * This leave the impression that Valley of Fire is in California: on location in Valley of Fire State Park and Lone Pine, California;
 * MOS:ALLCAPS ... . "MOVIE REVIEW : 'Star Trek': We've Gone This Way Before : 'Generations' Relies Heavily on Audience Appreciation of the First Two TV Series". ... check throughout
 * Some authors in citations are last name first, others are first name first-- make consistent.
 * You can install this script to review duplicate links-- there are lots of them, some may be justifiable.
 * There are fourteen instances of also and also is almost always redundant ... see User:Tony1 writing exercises and doublecheck them.
 * There are several MOS:LQ issues, sample ... Coates summed up the subplot as "dreary."
 * Starting in to the lead, I am having to guess that Malcolm McDowell was not an original cast member ?
 * It is the seventh film in the Star Trek film series, and brings together cast members from the 1960s television show Star Trek and the 1987 spin-off show The Next Generation, with Malcolm McDowell also starring. --> would this work so I don't have to guess ...
 * It is the seventh film in the Star Trek film series. Malcolm McDowell joins cast members from the 1960s television show Star Trek and the 1987 spin-off show The Next Generation.


 * Not a trekkie, had to re-read this to figure out what it meant ...
 * Generations was conceived as a handoff from the Star Trek films featuring the original cast, to that of The Next Generation. -- > would this work?
 * Generations was conceived as a handoff from the original cast of the Star Trek films to the cast of The Next Generation.


 * Needs reworking, redundant ... Critical reception was mixed, with critics divided ... mixed reception and critics divided say the same thing.
 * Awkward ... In the midst of the distressed refugees beamed aboard Enterprise, one confronts a crew member about the rescue and pleads to be returned to his ship. -->
 * One of the distressed refugees beamed aboard Enterprise confronts a crew member about the rescue and pleads to be returned to his ship.

I think the article is quite competent and enjoyable to read. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What is a holodeck ?
 * I didn't know Kirk was gone; thank goodness for Wikipedia ;)
 * Redundant: McDowell had previously worked with Stewart on stage decades earlier, ...
 * Redundant (to but): Initially, the entire principal cast of The Original Series was featured in the film's first script, but ...
 * Use a dash for a stronger punctuation break ? The script called for an entirely new location on Enterprise, stellar cartography.
 * Have you looked at the essay, WP:RECEPTION?
 * Thanks for the comments, Sandy (and having non-trekkies to read this stuff is vital so it's not incomprehensible!) I've gone through and addressed most of the above—the only thing I didn't really change was the "mixed" reception mention (although I tweaked the wording a bit), just because I wanted to convey the idea that aggregate critical opinion was mixed, but also on what specific elements critics tended to diverge on. Thanks for the dupe links script to add to my toolbox; I left the extra links in the cast section, just because I think it's useful to have them in context in plot as well as where they're specifically called out, but removed most of the other ones (or reworded to avoid needing to link something before it was super-relevant and cut down on excessive names to keep track of.) I did a line edit through the entire article to try and reduce unnecessary wordiness; I have read RECEPTION but the sections will forever remain my bane. I took a stab at further reducing specific mention of critics so there's less "X said" repetition, although I find it tough on a topic like this because there's so many points of disagreement between critics I can't just generalize their opinions on specific parts. More feedback with fresher eyes on areas to improve is of course welcome. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 21:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All my quibbles addressed ... because I am not a trekkie or a movie editor, I am leaning support, pending review from editors experienced with the content area. Please ping me if I lose track (as I am wont to do)!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, now that content experts have endorsed, and source review is passed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Erik
Hello, I'll review by section. Please note that while this is a list of specific critiques, I recognize this article as very high-quality overall.

Lead section: Cast Production Release Critical response Please let me know your thoughts! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This may be a personal preference based on my reading of MOS:FIRST, but I think the first sentence should prioritize more noteworthy elements. In this case, the fact that it is directed by David Carson is not necessary to have in the first sentence, with the series linking and numbering, and the actors/characters, being more important. Any chance it can be placed later in the first paragraph or even in the second paragraph?
 * Moved the Carson mention into the production bit, and simplified the first paragraph to bring up the casting info quicker.
 * While I recognize that the Star Trek films have many actors, it seems remiss to not name Stewart and Shatner in the first paragraph, especially in connection with their roles. I also think mention of McDowell should be connected with the villain. (Basically, naming all the actors behind all the major characters mentioned.)
 * Mentioned Stewart and Shatner specifically.
 * "...while the final season of the television series was being made, and suffered from an extremely tight production timeline." I'm not a grammar expert, but is the comma and the conjunction properly used correctly here?
 * You can use a comma and conjunction with any clauses that could stand on their own; I've adjusted a few examples you brought up here just to make them occasionally a bit punchier.
 * Same question with this sentence: " The film opened at the top of the domestic box office its first week of release, and grossed a total of $118 million worldwide."
 * Removed comma since it reads fine without the pause.
 * "Filming took place on the Paramount Studios lots, as well as on location in Valley of Fire State Park, Nevada and Lone Pine, California; the climax of the movie was revised and reshot following poor reception from test audiences." This sentence has a lot of information; perhaps separate it? And replace "movie" with "film" as the standard term?
 * Tweaked.
 * Recommend replacing "domestic" with "US" to avoid the relative nature of "domestic" and "international".
 * Done.
 * When checking for mention of Kirk/Shatner, I found it odd that he was mentioned in the fourth paragraph. Perhaps consider having an overview sentence in the "Cast" section mentioning the three main actors, then grouping the rest?
 * Shatner gets "and" billing on the poster block, and the Next Generation cast gets billed before McDowell, so I was trying (roughly) to stick to that while also grouping other cast mentions where it makes sense (including other TNG actors besides background roles with the TNG cast.) I've moved Ruck and the Enterprise-B crew roles down after the TOS actors so it lines up a little better; does that help?
 * Yes, that works.
 * "Producer Rick Berman told the press that, "Both Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley felt they made a proper goodbye in the last movie."" I think "that" should be dropped here, if it is a fully-quoted sentence.
 * Tweaked.
 * "Patrick Stewart said that he had made an effort to ensure that the original cast were involved in the film, saying 'I've been passionate...'" Seems awkward with "said" and "saying", especially with no comma after the latter. Could be smoothened out.
 * Tweaked.
 * "mandated" seems like an odd word to choose when "required" seems better-suited.
 * Swapped.
 * "demise" could be replaced by "destruction", since "demise" sounds personal
 * Swapped.
 * "A revised version of the script..." This sentence is too long and detailed. I would recommend breaking it up into two. Also, not sure if it is me, but I can't tell what "the scene's joke" means here? Maybe an adjective to add to "sequence", like "tongue-in-cheek sequence" or something like that?
 * Simplified the sentence structure a little. The line is supposed to mean that Shatner basically thought the joke that the old crew couldn't figure out the new ship went too far, but since you stumbled on it I guess it's not necessarily clear. Do you have an idea about how to make that work better to your eyes? If not, we could always just cut it. It's a minor detail all things considered.
 * I would support cutting it as a minor detail.
 * Any reason there can't be a screenshot of the Starship Enterprise-B? Reading about the design makes me want to see it.
 * We have one later, in the Special Effects section, although it doesn't give a great look at the ship. There's alternate images such as this that give a better look at the ship while still showing some of the Nexus so they'd have a similar fair use rationale, but I feel like I'd still want to keep the image in Effects because it more directly relates to the image text regarding the Nexus' look and CG ships.
 * That's fine by me. One can search off-Wikipedia for images of it anyway.
 * Maybe call "Design and costumes" just "Design"? Costume design would fall under "Design" for me.
 * Adjusted.
 * "long serving" should be hyphenated.
 * Adjusted.
 * "wrapped" is kind of specialist industry lingo, maybe say "concluded" instead for laypersons.
 * Swapped.
 * "ILM CG Supervisor..." Seems like the closing quotation mark should be inside the punctuation since Schlag's quote is a fragment.
 * Adjusted punctuation.
 * It may be worth changing "North America" to "US and Canada" since that's what it really means in film-industry lingo. See box office territory.
 * Adjusted.
 * "It was the highest-grossing film..." Seems like the comma and conjunction here needs to be fixed too.
 * Adjusted.
 * Regarding "Britain", seems like it should be "UK" instead, since the source mentions "UK total gross".
 * Swapped.
 * I would suggest for CinemaScore-related content to be under "Box office" instead for a couple of reasons. I find the section heading to mean, literally, response from critics, who will watch the film whether or not they want to. Whereas with CinemaScore, the grade is based on opening-weekend audiences, and there can be an expectation-versus-reality issue with the grading. So I tend to prefer to tie the CinemaScore grade into "Box office" since it fits with the opening-weekend gross. Another opinion is to have "Critical and audience responses".
 * Moved to the previous section.
 * "overly long" should be hyphenated.
 * Adjusted.
 * There seem to be a few comma-with-conjunction issues here (with Boyar, Biodrowski, etc).
 * I've tweaked one or two, but to my eyes most of these are acceptable clauses on their own and work with the comma.
 * Works for me. I wasn't fully trusting my own grammatical expertise.
 * "winning the day" seems slangish. Maybe a more basic declaration.
 * Adjusted, see if that works better?
 * Seems like there is a mix of "wrote" and "said" used here. Not sure if these are at odds with each other, and needs to be cleared up with variations or alternatives?
 * I don't really have an issue with it in terms of reducing the same verbs without getting excessively flowery ("opined" and the like.) People use "said" for written content regularly, at least in AmEng. I defer to other sentiment if it's strong against said usage.
 * thanks for the comments! I've addressed considerations inline; most I agreed with, but one or two could use your followup to see if I addressed them to your satisfaction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Got your ping! I'm busy the rest of today but can follow up tomorrow. Will most likely support after reviewing your comments and answering. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support this well-researched and well-composed article. But hope that whatever feedback GamerPro64 can offer will be considered too, before a promotion. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by GamerPro64
This nomination needs more love. Will get to it soon. GamerPro64 05:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Noticed that the article uses a link to Rotten Tomatoes and its aggregate score. I have been told from previous FACs that the use of the site is discouraged for articles on films that came out before the websites inception. GamerPro64  01:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing it, but in general I've found editors continually add them in and I don't like getting into slow-motion edit wars over it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I don't want to hold off a nomination with something like this. I still Support the article overall. GamerPro64  04:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Fourthords (satisfied article meets FA criteria)
That's all I have, having gone through it line-by-line. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 18:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In the "Development" section, are the small caps part of the original quote, or is that a prescribed Wiki-affectation? I ask, remembering MOS:CONFORM.
 * They're part of the quote, but I changed them to italics to align with the MOS.
 * In the sentence "We were obsessed with the poster image of the two Enterprises", is the italicization of the plural 's' correct?
 * Should be. I haven't found any specific grammar rules when it comes to plural nouns with typesetting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "The Enterprise-D's destruction also appeared—the saucer crash had first been proposed by Moore as the conclusion to part one of a sixth-season cliffhanger story that was scrapped." Do we know to which of the three two-parter conclusions he's referring?
 * It was called "All Good Things" at the time, but to my knowledge the episode didn't exactly make it in any recognizable form to the screen, so it's not really one of the two-parters that actually aired ("Gambit", or "Descent", et al.)
 * There is a comment in the "Filming" section that says, "add details from strange new worlds featurette from dvd". Is that still in the works?
 * Didn't clean up after myself. The mentions were ultimately trivial enough I didn't think it added much to include. Removed comment.
 * "Generations and The Next Generation were filmed simultaneously on different soundstages on Paramount Studio's lot." Should that instead be "Paramount Studios' lot"?
 * Changed to the ... lot, given that there's only the one and it's weird to make it possessive in that instance.
 * Still under "Filming": "The Enterprise-D crash scenes were filmed mid-May 1994, and were among the last remaining shots before the existing Next Generation sets were demolished to make way for Voyager." Are we referring here to Star Trek: Voyager or USS Voyager (Star Trek)?
 * Fixed.
 * "with the cabin filled with props to represent Kirk's career, from a Klingon bat'leth to a painting of the Enterprise." Which Enterpeise?
 * It's not entirely clear from the citation. From the film itself it's clear it's the original 1701, but I put "his" in just to avoid a surprise link and bogging down the section.
 * I've already consolidated citations where obvious, but regarding the fourth paragraph under "Effects": since I don't have the source, can that whole paragraph be cited to magid-1995, 81–86?
 * It could, but I generally have preferred to keep citations separate when they're not on contiguous pages just so it's less likely that the citations will get broken later on and it's easier to verify.
 * Star Trek: Generations – Beyond the Nexus Why are we piping this?
 * Dunno, removed.
 * Rounding out the third paragraph under "Critical response", why isn't the Ebert quote cited?
 * Moved to the end.
 * Thanks fourthords, responded inline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Mymis
Mymis (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is hard to believe that the poster used in the infobox was actually distributed in the movie theatres. It does not even have the film's name on it. When I type the film's name + words "DVD", "VHS" or "poster" onto Google, different results show up. Additionally, source used for the image on its file page takes it to joblo.com which has a different image.
 * As the caption says, it's the theatrical release poster art, which was used for many to most of its home video releases. I have adjusted the source.
 * Why can't this be used instead? (from the same source) The one that is in the article looks like some fan art with logos/text removed. "Many to most"? I did a few dozen searches online for dvd/vhs websites for that film and they all use the poster I included; I could not find the one you used anywhere, only on star trek fandom website.
 * Looking at reference formatting, names of websites should not be in italics, such as Box Office Mojo, StartTrek.com, TrekMovie.com etc. The Buffalo News should be linked.
 * That's something you'll have to take up with cite web.
 * Well, you can use parameter "publisher=" instead using the same "citeweb".
 * In "See Also" section, "Star Trek film series" should not be there as it is already linked in the article's body, per MOS:NOTSEEALSO.
 * Removed the section entirely.
 * "Generations was followed by 1996's Star Trek: First Contact, exclusively featuring the Next Generation cast." is seen in the intro but not even mentioned in the article?? There is no a reference for it either??
 * I don't see how that needs a reference given that it's patently obvious.
 * I never seen any Star Trek films, so it is not obvious to me. Intro must summarise the article, so if it is not mentioned anywhere in the article, so it should be excluded from the intro too?
 * From the infobox, "Edited by	Peter E. Berger", where is the ref for it? Again, why is not even mentioned in the body of the article??
 * Added a reference. Discussion of the editing of the film didn't come up in research, hence it's not unduly mentioned.
 * I think "the Internet" is always in caps?
 * Not per Associated Press, Chicago, and many other style guides.
 * In the intro, critical reception described as "lukewarm" (generally positive?) but the article's body describes it as "mixed". Is that really the same thing? By reading the reviews you selected I do not see many positive comments, it was mostly all negative. Not sure if it is all consistent.
 * Lukewarm means middling, neither hot nor cold. That jives with "mixed" reception to me. There are plenty of positive comments and reviews quoted in the section.
 * That is not the way "lukewarm" sounds to me at all. All the reviews appear to be either mixed or negative.
 * "Star Trek Generations earned mixed reviews from critics and fans." -> "Fans"? Where in the article does it say how fans reacted to the film in a "mixed" way? It says in the next sentence "picked for years by fans for its problems". What problems did the fans pick it apart? Which fans and how many of them? Did some fans react to it positively?
 * It mentions fans in the sentence right after the one you quoted. I'm not sure what the issue with the wording is here; it's not saying all fans, and it's not trying to identify exactly which fans any more than we ever specify exactly which critics when we talk about critical reception.
 * Right. With the first sentence you indicate fans in general had mixed feelings about the film but then you only provide one single website Tor.com to back such claim. You mention "its problems" as well which is unclear. What problems? Did the fans (same fans who were interviewed/polled by the Tor.com website?) have the same issues with the film as the critics?
 * Box office section is a bit short for me. Was the film a box office success or dissapointment? Bare numbers may not give a proper insight/understanding for the readers whether the film was financially successful or not. Did it earn more or less than the previous/subsequent Start Trek films? These two articles and  interestingly not used in the article. They both describe the box office result as moderate. What about this article  which is not used either. By reading these articles, it appears that Star Trek hit its lowest point with this film and creators had to think hard on how to improve with the subsequent film. Why was this not even mentioned anywhere in the article? Why is there no "Legacy" section in this article when there is clearly a need for it? Based on that and the previous points I made, I am not convinced this article has been researched well. I am not very experienced in the FAC process, but I am not sure if this article is ready at all.
 * Star Trek already had a two-picture deal going into Generations, it didn't lose money, and there was no widespread evidence that it hit its "lowest" point (when you get to Star Trek: Nemesis you will start getting plenty of sources talking about it "killing" the franchise.) Pirrello's opinions on the film appear out of sync with the majority of sources, and why the article itself doesn't make the claim. I'm not sure where you're getting a clear "need" for a Legacy section. Most of the "legacy" regarding the film franchise is related to the film franchise itself, not Generations. There's no direct sequels to anything talked about in this film or spinoffs. It hasn't seen some great sea change in its critical appraisal years later. 22:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not really know, I have not seen the film nor done any research about it. But the film is part of a film series, so I do not know how it would be unreasonable for a reader to expect to find some info in regards to how the film did compared to other films in the franchise, financially and/or critically. It would still be in relation to the film that this article is about. Unclear why this article is not used; the screenwriters discuss the film and that they were dissapointed with it and wanted to redeem themselves. In what way does that not fit in this article?
 * I've replied inline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 22:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, did you have anything to add? cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, my initial comments are still not addressed. Mymis (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the points I feel actionable; beyond that, Mymis and I simply disagree on elements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * it is difficult to determine here exactly what you still want addressed, as you did not strike those that have been addressed. But, for example, there is no clarity anywhere on Wikipedia as to what, where, when italics should be used in citations; even with multiple discussion and RFCs, there is nothing but inconsistency and information at odds with MOS, so this is not a reason to hold up a FAC (or, as David Fuchs said, take that up with the citation templates, which are at odds with MOS).  We can't hold up a FAC when different pages are at odds with MOS.  Which are your other unaddressed concerns?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Italics within refs is not a big issue. However, I raised an issue with the poster; unclear sentence about how fans reacted to the film; and lack of comments about how film did compared to other films in the franchise, per my comments above. The nominator appears to have disagreed with my suggestions but did not address my further points. I can see some tweeks were made since then, for instance, adding a sentence about the film's financial success (my initial comment about it was completely ignored). The source I found (BBC source and The Hollywood Reporter) described the film as a "dissapointment" and "modest hit". Recently added Den of Geek source used in the article described it as a success? Which one is it? Mymis (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Different reviewers are bound to have different opinions. Our role isn't to give credence to either of them, but to present them neutrally, with equal weight. Whether the rest of the article sways towards one more than the others is a different situation. It’s the first sentence of Reception: "Star Trek Generations earned mixed reviews from critics and fans." It isn't either of them. It’s mixed. That's what mixed means. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Vanamonde93
Thanks for bringing this here...I've written some about speculative fiction, less about film; so I don't have much to offer on the film-specific side of things besides checking for readability. Please feel free to revert/discuss any copy-editing that I do. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC) That's it from me; this is a very detailed article, particularly with respect to the production process; my comment about analysis is my only major one. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "one of those saved pleads to be returned to his ship"; whether this is granted is ambiguous.
 * Clarified.
 * "to avoid earlier call times." I assume this would have been for make-up, might be worth specifying; but even otherwise, perhaps a wiktionary link to call time?
 * Adjusted caption.
 * "because as a Star Trek fan he had to get used to performing alongside his idols." this isn't terribly clear to me...
 * Tried to make this clearer.
 * "The ship was a modification of the Excelsior model" The Excelsior hasn't been introduced yet; a non-Trekkie would be confused, I think.
 * The explanation for what the Excelsior is follows that introduction; I've tweaked the wording to hopefully make it clearer that it leads into the explanation.
 * "It was one of the largest sets" "It" is ambiguous here.
 * Tweaked.
 * link/explain "anamorphic"
 * Reworded.
 * "for CG modeler Rob Coleman to iterate from" "iterate" strikes me as jargon in this context; can you link/explain?
 * "Iterate" in this context means you pump out a bunch of mockups or studies to get rapid feedback versus devoting your time to one or a few options. I've tried to reword without using the term.
 * The image of the ribbon is rather small; on a standard computer screen it's hard to see as anything other the the Enterprise against a background of...something. Can you enlarge it?
 * I added a  parameter to scale it up 50%; how does it look now?
 * Much better, thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "these figures wore the Blackman-designed Starfleet uniforms" we've already covered this above...can the redundancy be reduced in one place or the other?
 * Removed the first mention.
 * "(albeit three years after the film's release)" the placing of this parenthetical information seems odd; why not swap it with the last sentence in that paragraph, and tweak the wording, so the first example isn't the extremely belated one?
 * Adjusted.
 * "Audiences surveyed by CinemaScore gave the film a grade B+" I know the next section is titled "critical response", but it does include mention of fans; and thematically, this sentence fits better there. Is it not typical to title that section simply "reception, and incorporate box office and audience responses?
 * I moved it per feedback above, but I moved it back (I think it makes more sense there.) Film articles generally split up box office and critical responses and accolades.
 * Paragraphs 2 and 3 of critical reception feel a little jumbled; some of the content in each feels unrelated to the topic sentence. I wonder if you could attempt to reorganize a little? For the record, organizing reception sections is something I struggle with too.
 * I've tried some shuffling around to hopefully make things a bit clearer.
 * "or suffering from technobabble" should this be "and suffering..."?
 * Like Laser Brain above, I too was struck by the absence of a themes section, or at least an "Analysis", offering what sources had to say about the movie besides "X is good, Y is bad". Even if no sources analyze this in depth, there must be material comparing it to other ST films? The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, for instance, has this to say: "Kirk dies heroically again. The moral, thumped home in the ST manner, is that it is better to face real life rather than escape into worlds of happy delusion." It's brief, certainly, but if an encyclopedia of enormous scope has this much detail, it seems to me other sources ought to have more...I also found this, which is again brief with respect to Generations, but does offer some analysis. A couple more brief sources;, . Not sure if these are usable; but perhaps they will facilitate the search for more.
 * Like I said to Laser, I just don't think there's much to actually craft here. I'm not averse to themes sections in these articles, but Generations simply doesn't have the critical and scholarly response that a better film like The Wrath of Khan has, or even a worse film like Star Trek Nemesis does. If you wanted to write about the film's themes of embracing life and the nature of mortality, there's a much better film in the series that has you covered (and that section I could probably expand.) I will take another look, but if all I can gin up is one or two pseudoparagraphs out of passing mentions, I don't think it really merits inclusion.
 * I'm a little unhappy but given my own failure to find more material, I can't really argue with this...I will attempt another sweep for sources, but in the interim it would be unfair to hold this up longer. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would meld "Home Media" into "release", to avoid the short section, but that's largely a matter of preference.
 * The main reason I stick it in its own section is because then it comes temporally after the reception, which I think flows a bit more logically (theatrical release -> how it was received -> later home video releases.)
 * Responded inline, Vanamonde. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Support, my concerns addressed. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Graham Beards
Support - I made a few tiny edits. You might disagree, but that's ok. Graham Beards (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They look good, thanks Graham. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

TRM
The cast section contains many overlinked items. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that the alternative is to remove links for characters where they are directly connected to the actor playing them, I opted to leave a few as duplicates from the plot section rather than removing them, as a benefit to the reader per MOS:DL. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Per request. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes here. Please outline why the following are high quality reliable sources:


 * StarTrek.com
 * AsianWeek
 * Trekmovie.com
 * Brandweek
 * 25thframe.co.uk

Thanks. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * StarTrek.com is an official site, and contains a large amount (or used to) of behind-the-scenes information written by Trek experts, for example those who had worked on the shows or written books on the subject. AsianWeek is a historically reliable edited Asian-American-focused publication that was in print for roughly three decades. Trekmovie meets RS criteria for Star Trek specifically; it's cited by other reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal and has been an official partner with CBS. While it started as a straight blog, it now has an editorial staff/masthead, and its editor has written articles for other publications, appeared as a guest on news networks, and participated in home video extras and supplemental commentary for the films. Brandweek is a respected advertising publication and part of Adweek, one of the largest trade publications that's been around for 40 years. I don't really have a strong defense for 25thframe; I tried asking on WP:RSN and FILM about it, and didn't get much response. I've just gone ahead and swapped it for a ref to the Guardian which covers some of the same territory. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Everything seems fine, but struggling a bit with Trekmovie. From the banner at the bottom of their home page: TrekMovie.com is not endorsed, sponsored or affiliated with CBS Studios Inc. Fn 26 was written by "Staff", with no real person in the by-line. It’s supporting this, in the article: As the production crew had already spent weeks removing traces of their shoot from the Valley of Fire, the set had to be rebuilt under a very tight schedule, followed by effects work to remove wires and rigging in time for the footage to be included in the final cut. I don't really see that reflected in the source. It doesn't mention them removing traces of their shoot, or the effects work. The closest it comes is mentioning that there were two weeks of expensive reshoots, I think? I might be missing some obvious here... It’s tangentially related? Plus, it’s just a reprint from an interview with StarTrek.com (a stronger source here).
 * PS. What about DVD Brands? I've never heard of it before. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the Trekmovie reference to the StarTrek.com one. The ref was supported by that and the Okuda mention, so I've just left it to the text commentary. They have the disclaimer because they aren't actually owned by CBS; it's pretty common for sites that have naming similarities to trademarks to have those disclaimers. As for DVD Brands, do you mean DVD Talk? They've treated as an authoritative source by small-scale and national news orgs like Fox, The Washington Post, ABC, and Wired. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I meant, yeah. Everything's good then. Passes the source check imo. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

1c and 2c
I trust that David has not paraphrased too closely and has reflected the sources, but I will do a sample of 10% because the article only has 64 references. An underlined reference number represents an offline source I retrieved myself, or requested from David over Discord. Can provide them to the noms if necessary.

One referencing issue in terms of formatting (not attached to punctuation). Have reviewed the article and can't see any other instances.

Okay. So, having looked at all the sources... I'm not seeing any extant issues in either the reference list (or referencing) other than the one instance I noted in the table? Publishers and websites are denoted properly, and italicised (or not) accordingly. No articles are pay-walled without it being disclosed in the references, which is nice. I don't know the rules about ISBNs, but it feels very nitpicky for me to say that there's an issue with some being dashed and others, not dashed... unless there's a guideline I'm unaware of. It’s well-formatted, appropriately cited, and uses a consistent referencing system.

Regarding well-researched, it absolutely is. I can't find a reference that this article doesn't use. The bibliography also reveals a broader reading than would be possible for me—things that are completely out of print (and I had to scour the darkest parts of the internet to find). In every case, I found them judiciously chosen. The spot checks felt less and less necessary as I went on. I conducted a few others, but didn't include them in the table... because it's a lot of work with no benefit. In every instance, the nominator has drawn together information from different sources, or even very far apart in the same source, that it really does live-up to being an actual, encyclopaedic overview in summary style. At first I thought maybe there was a missing Legacy section, but no. Turns out the film doesn't have much of one. Kudos, anyway. Support. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)