Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In a Mirror, Darkly/archive1

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 not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

In a Mirror, Darkly[edit]

Featured article candidates/In a Mirror, Darkly/archive1

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I've been working on several ST episodes, bringing them up to the GA standard and I think that there are a handful which would be suitable for FA (three at the moment, this being the first). Whilst I've done a dozen or so FLs, I've never taken an article to FA before (I had two failed attempts with dog breed articles before, which were mainly due to my lack of knowledge of suitable referencing). There is a single Enterprise episode already at FA so far: These Are the Voyages.... To cover a couple of the expected queries about referencing here - the author of Jammer's Reviews was held in such regard by the producers of Star Trek that they flew him out to California to pitch story ideas for Voyager (admittedly, unsuccessfully!), TrekNation/Trek Today, Trekweb and TrekMovie are three of the only four fan sites recommended by the official Star Trek website here. Miyagawa (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and give a review for this. Ping me if you haven't heard from me in a day or two :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Miyagawa. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A full review is pending, but I think the plot section could be significantly cut down and made more accessible to non-Star Trek fans (i.e., cutting down on the jargon—don't need to mention transporting if it's not relevant, etc.) I'd taken a first whack at it myself, but it needs more work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to trim another 200 or so characters off of it - mostly from the first part. Miyagawa (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check for overuse of the word "episode" throughout the article.122.172.45.13 (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure how else to refer to the episode in question within the article, otherwise I'd have to use the title repeatedly which would be longer and probably look very repetitive. Miyagawa (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Installment? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - reduced the "episode" count down by a quarter using installment and some copyediting. Miyagawa (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC nomination) This article In a Mirror, Darkly seems to have taken a bit of inspiration for its model from These Are the Voyages..., and I've noticed the quality improvement efforts over time of both articles with pleasure. Great work with the referencing throughout. It would be nice to see if there were any secondary source commentary somewhat elaborating upon the comments by Linda Park about her character Hoshi Sato and her development in this episode. Particularly if there has been any sort of analysis about this from scholarly academic sources. Also, it'd be nice if some of those redlinks could be made into sourced stubs. But neither are of a necessity and the article is indeed quite high quality. — Cirt (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

"Jammer's Reviews" - what makes this a high-quality and reliable source?
Ref 33: I am not sure how this source should be used or interpreted - can you clarify?
Ref 34: returns "address not found" (Later: I checked it again and it worked. The checking tool lists it as broken, so I'd keep an eye on it)

All other links working. Subject to above, sources look OK. Spotchecks not done. Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Jammer's Reviews started with reviews of Star Trek: Voyager and during the process he ended up discussing Voyager with the producers of the show after they found his reviews online. Following that he was invited to pitch stories to the show (none of which were actually picked up). He reported on the trip here. After Voyager, he reviewed Enterprise and then went back and reviewed the other shows from the DVD releases. The Emmy Awards Database (#33) is pretty much to back-up the more detailed TrekWeb report on the nominations and also to act as a source for the Deadwood award win (which is why I didn't mention in the text which episode of Deadwood won - because the database doesn't say). I'll keep an eye on 34, I checked archive.org but it isn't on there unfortunately. Miyagawa (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should say - I consider the reviews on the Jammer site to be reliable as the producers of Voyager took his opinions seriously enough to invite him to pitch. Just realised I hadn't made that specifically clear. Miyagawa (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image note: infobox image is currently nominated for deletion. Other images are okay copyright-wise, although captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the check - I've removed the image out the infobox, I think it is made redundant by the costume image further down. I've changed the other image captions to include periods as I think they are all full sentences. Miyagawa (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.