Talk:The Way of the Warrior (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)

Untitled

While it is great to have a picture of Martok, this article could really do with a picture of Worf, his arrival is an essential part of the episode (but to the writers credit it doesn't overwhelm the episode either). I really do think it has to be of Worf (not an image Michael Dorn or anything else) to best enhance readers understanding of the article. -- 109.78.207.64 (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

In 2017, Insider magazine made a list of underrated episodes, and while I think it is utterly boneheaded to suggest this episode was underrated, their comments on the episode might be of some use later.[1] Their silly notion that the episode is underrated seems to be based solely on a list of most watched Star Trek episodes published by Netflix.[2] -- 109.78.207.64 (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

More plot?

The plot section feels a little too short for this 90 minute double episode. Maybe later we can expand the plot section and restore some of the detail?[3] It was clearly shortened in a good faith effort to comply with MOS:TVPLOT and it is certainly a skill to distill the plot down to the bare minimum but I believe television movies and double episodes are allowed some leeway, see the pilot episode for example. -- 109.78.207.64 (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC) [P.S. Better example might be the Enterprise episodes Storm Front (Star Trek: Enterprise) or In a Mirror, Darkly[4] as they have long Plot sections and have been rated as Good articles.)

As far as I know, MOS:TVPLOT's recommended 400-word maximum doesn't depend on the length of the episode; 10-minute episodes get 400-word synopses just as much as 90-minute episodes. I assume that's for the sake of the readability of the article, rather than the amount of material that exists to be summarized. I mean, if MOS:TVPLOT actually does allow a longer synopsis here I suppose we can have one; but I kind of like the compactness of 400 words. AJD (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are never that specific, they always have huge exceptions. Many guidelines are not enforced, except when articles are evaluated for {{Good article}} or {{Featured article}} and often not even then. It is hard to know if the other double episode articles with Plot sections divided into Part 1 and Part 2 are actually good examples of what Project Television wants good quality articles to do. There is an argument to be made that this is two episodes and could have 400 words for each part, or that it is a television film and could have a film plot section of 400-700 words. I'm more familiar with Wikipedia film articles where they were never particularly strict about plot length length especially on the lower end, it was the blow-by-blow, excessively long plot summaries they were trying to avoid. Editors generally agreed that plot sections in excess of 1000 words were excessive. (The Project film documentation used to list Pulp Fiction and Momento (film) as examples of more complicated films with longer plot summaries but a few determined editors proved that even they could be explained succinctly if that was what people actually wanted.) Nonetheless editors continue to try and argue for more leeway for longer films or anthology films, and still make excuses for their favorite film. The editors of project television logically concluded that television article plot sections should generally be about half as long as film articles.[5]

Reading through guidelines again and some of the old discussions[6] it is made clearer that the plot section is also there to support and help provide context to the rest of the article. It would be better to have a bit more in the plot section than to have to re-explain parts of the plot in the Production of Reception sections.

I haven't yet identified anything in particular I think is missing from the Plot section but it is weighted heavily in favor of Part 2. There's no hurry, we can always revisit this if anyone thinks something specific is missing. -- 109.79.81.165 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Reviews

I looked for some more reviews or other potential sources:

• Jammer's Reviews Review by Jamahl Epsicokhan 3.5 out of 4 [7] (estimated publication date 2008 based on the earliest comments below the article, but it may have been first published elsewhere before that date)
• Michelle Erica Green reviewed the episode for TrekNation [8] publication date 2004
• Ex Astris Scientia 10 out of 10[9]
• Tim Lynch (who is Tim Lynch[10]?) review, 8 out of 10[11] (wiki reprint source not suitable for use in Wikipedia, but a usenet archive link might be workable)
• The 2016 Empire magazine list of top Star Trek episode is counted by as a Rotten Tomatoes review, might reuse that source a bit more
• Again a top list rather than a review, but The Digital Fix describe this episode as the point where it turns from a a good show to great one[12]
• Cinefantastique November 1996. Review of The Way of the Warrior Page 26.
  • Also Rick Berman interview page 24. Ira Behr interview page 27. Special effects article on page 64 mentions some relevant details, and page 71
• ST:D producer Erika Lippoldt picked it as a favorite episode [13]
• Emmy Nominated[14][15]

I can already see that Cinefantastique will be useful in expanding the Production section, and I'll pick through the rest in more detail ~later~ and see if I can make use of them. I think it's important to show your work, and I mention these sources here in case anyone else might be interested in improving the article before I eventually get back around to it, later, ... who knows when. -- 109.79.81.165 (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Jammer reviewed the episodes as they came out; that review was written in 1995. That said, Jammer's Reviews have been removed from some other Star Trek episode articles in the grounds that he's just "some guy with a blog", rather than a major reviewer from an established publication. AJD (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I would hate to exclude a review purely because of snobbery if it was particularly insightful, and no other suitable reviews were available. User:Miyagawa repeatedly made arguments for the notability of Jammer's Reviews and it has been accepted as a source in multiple Good article reviews (Miyagawa brought the entirety of Enterprise season 4 up to a Good Category level). I don't recall the exact arguments they made but I will post a link next time I come across one of those old discussions. The point about reliable sources is well taken, but he's "some guy" who was invited to pitch an episode to the producers of Voyager and asked for his views on Star Trek by TV Guide. (It is difficult to take some of the complaints about sources seriously when we have editors going around deplatforming major newspapers, see WP:RSPS, and refusing to allow even film reviews from well known critics because they were unfortunately associated with those newspapers.) My priority is making and article more informative and dragging lower quality articles up to a moderate standard. TrekNation's association with UGO.com and the syndication of Jammer's Reviews reviews by Space.com and his long history of reviews gives me at least as as much confidence in his reviews as the random "journalist" from io9/Vox/Screenrant/etc. who was compelled to knock out yet another Star Trek listicle. In some cases it might be particularly useful to have a contemporary review, rather than a later one if opinions have changed dramatically over time, but a review is a review, and it most cases it makes little or no difference when it was written. Until recently this article didn't actually include any reviews, but now it has quality reviews from reliable sources such as The AV Club and Tor.com and for most articles that should be good enough, and for this article there probably won't be any particular compelling argument to use Jammer's Reviews. So iff I believe his review offers some special insight not othewise available I'll make sure to discuss it first, but there's a fair chance I wont even use his review. (I found Tim Lynch's review of this episode interesting because he finally reluctantly compared DS9 to Babylon 5 but again, there probably is no compelling need to use that review either, that comparison is more to do with the series as a whole rather than this episode specifically.)

There are probably enough other sources available for the older shows and episodes anyway, I might just need to dig deeper and consult an actual library rather than more easily accessible online sources. I don't plan to work on it anytime soon. Anyone interested in using that issue of Cinefantastique to write a thorough and detailed Production section should go right ahead. -- 109.78.196.125 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)