Wikipedia:Peer review/Stargate (device)/archive1

Stargate (device)

 * Previous Peer review at /Archive 1

I would like this article to be peer reviewed to help us make it reach FAC and then FA. We have all put a lot of work into it, and taken into account past objections. We have tried to include verifiable references, and use an "out of universe" perspective regarding the Stargate. I don't feel it's FA standard yet, but can't put my finger on what needs to change (content wise). So all feedback and comments very welcome. --  Alfakim  --  talk   14:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pretty much all of the images need fair use rationales (take a look at WP:FUC). In addition, a minor issue is that, per WP:MOS, the word "The" should generally not start a heading. Thanks, AndyZ t 21:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In the intro, where the pic and table of contents are side by side the little narrow collum of text doesn't look good. Tobyk777 23:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion of the real-world science seems slightly odd. We don't need so much emphasis on why it would not work in practice. That is not exactly original research, and it is probably worth mentioning, but it is getting a bit tangential. The article would read more smoothly if it sourced a popular but fairly authoritative account of why the idea makes some kind of scientific sense at all. Surely someone like Carl Sagan must have done this. Do we have any idea of where the show's original writers got the idea, or was it just a science fiction cliche that they picked up and used? Metamagician3000 02:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's really funny. I added most of the "real world science" sections in response to the FAC which said we hadn't discussed it nonfictionally enough - they wanted those sections. Anyway they could be cut down or resourced, yes. --  Alfakim  --  talk   19:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is funny. I think it's important to discuss movies, shows, etc., non-fictionally in the sense of discussing their commercial and critical success, cultural impact, generic influence, etc., but not to get too bogged down in debating whether their science is accurate unless this has actually been controversial and the controversy (as opposed to the science itself) can be sourced. Still, take my comment with a grain of salt by all means. Metamagician3000 14:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of science fiction cliches, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the discussion of earlier uses of similar ideas. The discussion reads a bit as if it is just every comparison that the writers could think of. There must be discussion, somewhere in the vast secondary material about science fiction, as to the origin and development of this idea of a network of instantaneous portals between worlds. I would expect the idea to go deep back into the Campbell Era, or before, but I don't know offhand. Someone should find out what the critical/historical literature on science fiction says about this. Metamagician3000 02:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * About that, our article: Jumpgate is basicaly a list of uses of stargate like concepts. Perhaps we should link to that as the main article.  Tobyk777 03:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined against this. It seems to me that that article has the same problem. Metamagician3000 00:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That could shorten the article. And, in response to Metamagician3000, we could attempt to combine the better parts of Jumpgate and the "similiar ideas" in Stargate (device), so there would be no loss, and the material could be fixed just as easily on the Jumpgate article as it could on Stargate (device). Armedblowfish 23:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MOS, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example,  ==The Biography==  would be changed to  ==Biography== .


 * Per WP:MOS, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .


 * Do you like the headings beter now? Armedblowfish 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC.
 * Personally, I would question if fair use does cover that many images. But it seems rather indefinite, and I'm no expert on the matter. Armedblowfish 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there are a bit too many fair use images, stretching WP:FUC to the limit. Perhaps some of the less informative images can be removed? AndyZ t 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is also about twice as long as the recommended upper limit. Perhaps some of the sections could be shortened, and the full text moved to other articles. (So Stargate (device) would have a brief summary, and the more detailed text would be linked to.) The excess pictures could then be moved to the new articles. Armedblowfish 21:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a point when the "complexities" section had its own article. This is possible, however i think just shortening the sections and removing repetition should be all that's needed. We don't want to sacrifice article quality - wikipedia isn't paper. --  Alfakim  --  talk   22:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion. OpenBSD became featured after it was shortened/split into sections. But each article is a unique case. Armedblowfish 03:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.


 * I tried to alphabetize the Categories, but Wikipedia seems to have its own ideas on how they should be organized. Armedblowfish 00:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be because Template:StargateTech is in the article, which won't be a problem. AndyZ t 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
 * Thanks, AndyZ t 22:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)