Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:15, 17 December 2008.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

 * Nominator(s): User:David Fuchs

The last FAC received mixed support; users Awadewit and Steve suggested that it needed beefing up. I have trawled through all the sources I was about to wrangle up by visiting two libraries and putting out requests on interlibrary loan. Compared to the article a month ago, there's another 10KB, 1800 words, 24 citations and more than ten substantial, multipage sources added. The sections on effects, filming, and music, in particular, have been expanded by more than eight paragraphs. In short, I believe it is now as comprehensive as it can be. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * What makes http://trekmovie.com/2007/05/12/interview-bryan-singer-on-trek/ a reliable source?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (GAH! Another Trek movie...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Above ref removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is a case to be made for trekmovie.com's reliability, if you want to. While it was only citing Bryan Singer's consideration of the film as an influence on his own movies, it'd be a shame to lose the statement as the film is cited as such (in much the same way as Empire Strikes Back) quite often as a gold standard to emulate when making SF sequels. Steve  T • C 09:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering 1) it was an interview, which is reliable no matter what; 2) TrekMovie.com has been right about everything on the new film and 3) it's a source Paramount respects, has held webchats with, interviewed everyone on the production team and was one of many sites that had the first official photos on the new film sent over to, you ought to be a good-faithed about what citations we editors use. Alientraveller (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It still has to meet WP:RS. If you found a source that talked about their relationship with Paramount, that might be good evidence to argue for its use (probably as a borderline source via WP:SPS like Kotaku, but still able to be used.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'll believe this is all too pendantic, to prove TrekMovie.com is not some random blog site that makes up its interviews I present AMC and Washington City Paper. Alientraveller (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Tropical   Cyclone  15:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from the lead. KHAAAAAN
 * Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is the second feature film based on the Star Trek science fiction franchise, and was released in 1982 by Paramount Pictures. - "And" &rarr; "that".
 * When Khan escapes from a fifteen-year exile to exact revenge on Kirk, the crew of the Enterprise must stop Khan from acquiring a powerful but unstable terraforming device. - "Fifteen" &rarr; "15". Also, replace the last "Khan" in that sentence with "him".
 * Director Nicholas Meyer completed the final script in twelve days, without accepting a writing credit. - "Twelve" &rarr; "12".
 * Meyer's approach evoked the swashbuckling atmosphere of the original series, and was reinforced by James Horner's musical score. - "Swashbuckling" is a rather bizarre word. Is it possible to find a replacement for it?
 * The production used various cost-cutting techniques to keep under budget, including utilizing old miniatures from past Star Trek projects. - "Star Trek" isn't needed here.
 * The Wrath of Khan was released in North America on June 4, 1982. It was a box office success, earning $97 million worldwide and setting a world record for first-day box office gross. - Is that USD?
 * Dissenting reviewers, such as the Washington Post, called the special effects outdated and the cast geriatric. - Put quotation marks around "geriatric".
 * Think I got to all of the above; I reworded the first sentence and broke it in twain, and put a wikilink to swashbuckling which I hope should help clarify. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I supported this FAC last time around. All I have to say right now is: Khhhaannnn!!!!!!!!!!!! Its a lot more expanded and comprehensive. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I intend not to oppose on comprehensiveness this time; the additions since the last FAC have filled the gaps I felt were present in the story of the film's development. I'll give it the once over later today for any other issues. Steve  T • C 09:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hopefully I can find some time to review the article more extensively, but in the meantime, I wanted to bring up a certain point. The "Cast" section bolds the names of the actors and roles, and while I realize this has been traditional formatting in a lot of film articles, I am not sure if this is in compliance with MOS:BOLD, which specifies limited usage of the formatting. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I never thought about that before... I guess I can remove the bolding if other editors have issues with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 15:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked the question last year at WT:MOS (I can't find the archive link right now, but I will), giving a couple of examples of bold usage in cast lists, one of which was the example the film Wikiproject does at WP:MOSFILM. The response I received from Sandy indicated it was OK. Steve  T • C 16:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * David, don't worry about it for now, then. It's not a big deal. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, here is the relevant discussion. Steve  T • C 16:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose . I'm close to supporting the article's promotion. Some prose tightening is required, but it'll take longer to list my suggestions here than it will to actually do it, so that's not a concern right now. My main issue is with the reception section, which relies too-heavily on weasel wording (an unfortunate term) and some original research. Examples include: "A near-universal note of praise was for the film's pacing..." which is cited to just two reviews. Even if this were cited to eight—or eighteen—reviews, it would still be inappropriate because it's selecting viewpoints that agree with your own impression of the film's critical reception. I'm sure it's correct, but what you need for all the statements like this is a separate source that properly summarises the critical consensus. "Complaints about the film focused on what were seen as tepid battle sequences, and perceived melodrama..." is another example, a statement that reads as if it summarises the entire negative reception to the film, when in fact it's just three that you've selected. And I'm sure the statement that "Critical response to The Wrath of Khan was positive" can be cited to something other than Rotten Tomatoes too. Only two of the reviews used by the site to generate its consensus score for Wrath of Khan pre-date 2000, so for summarising the response upon the film's release it's not the best source to use. Oh, and there's still that missing cite at the end of the fourth paragraph of the "Development" section. Steve  T • C 13:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * added the citations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a cite that might be used to add the statement that Trek fans generally consider it the best in the series ("It is nearly gospel now among Trekkies that the second Star Trek installment, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, is the undisputed best of the series, and will likely never meet its equal.") It should pass muster as a reliable source; Christopher Null is the author of a book on film criticism and has written for Wired, Business 2.0, PC World, Men's Journal, and San Francisco Magazine among others. Steve  T • C 14:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It might also be worth mentioning that Wrath of Khan was the film on which Marc Okrand first developed the Vulcan language; the actors' scenes were filmed in English and dubbed later in Vulcan once Okrand came up with words that synced well with the actors' lips. There's a USA Today cite for that here; feel free to ignore the suggestion if you think it trivial, it won't affect my !vote one way or the other. Steve  T • C 14:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the Christopher Null citation as well as one I had commented in and forgot about; I knew about the Okrand bit but didn't add it as it doesn't really mesh with anything else (it would be of use for the Vulcan and Klingon pages, though.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm still trying to come up with ways in which the "Critical response" section can be beefed up as it still seems a little light. Has it ever appeared on any of the AFI lists? Have you also considered mentioning the Saturn Awards the film won (here), and the Hugo it was nominated for (here)? Oh, and the 2002 special edition DVD release was also nominated for a "Best DVD Release" award at the 2003 Saturn Awards. That might be a more trivial thing to mention, but it might be useful as an addendum to the last line in the "Home video" section. Or not. Your call. Steve  T • C 14:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you also think that the release and box office information should sit outside the "Critical response" section, as it's not strictly about the critical reaction to the film? Here's how it would look. Again, your call. Steve  T • C 15:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't like sad lonesome paragraphs all alone :) I think the DVD award is somewhat trivial, but I've added in the awards information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 15:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck oppose. Steve  T • C 16:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. The major issues I had have pretty much been resolved or explained. Nice work. Steve  T • C 15:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I would have supported this in the first FAC, but the article has improved so much more, and Steve is a lot smarter than me so if he approves, I approve. Alientraveller (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, crumbs, don't put this on me, what do I know? :) That said, you're more likely than me to know whether the article covers all the major facts and details, so in turn your support makes me feel better about mine. Steve  T • C 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Great article - covers all the points a movie article should and does it very well. Loved the movie too, BTW. --mav (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Remarks&mdash;I thought it was FA worthy last time and it still looks so. A couple of points come to mind now that don't appear to be answered by the article:
 * I think the Plot section should explain the relevance of the Kobayashi Maru scenario to the remainder of the story. My guess would be that it shows the crew of the Enterprise is inexperienced and that Captain ("I don't like to lose") Kirk employs irregular tactics to achieve victory. But I'm sure some reference can clarify the link.
 * Did the dramatic scene showing the death of midshipman Peter Preston have some relevance? I think the director's cut explained that he was Scotty's son, but this isn't mentioned. Was there anything else of interest in the director's cut?
 * Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. The significance of the Kobayashi Maru is explained later in the article, here:"The Kobayashi Maru test forces its participants to confront an unwinnable situation which serves as a test of character, but Kirk reveals that he won the test by cheating; Saavik responds that Kirk has never faced death. Spock's own solution to the no-win scenario, that of self-sacrifice, forces Kirk to confront death after continually cheating it, and to grow as a character."And Scotty's relative gets a few words in the "Cast" section, here:"Scott loses his young nephew following Khan's attacks on the Enterprise. The cadet, played by Ike Eisenmann, had many of his lines cut from the original theatrical release, including a scene where it is explained he is Scott's relative. These scenes were [later reintroduced] making Scott's grief at the crewman's death more understandable." All the best, Steve  T • C 23:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 *  Dabs please. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, you've had to since forever, I just never listen :) Ok, checking... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done (only three is hardly bad for me.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.