Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home/archive1

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in getting it to FA sometime down the line. The content has mostly gelled, and it's passed GAN, but I suspect that my usual issues in regards to organization and prose are probably the biggest issues. Also, I'm interested in feedback on the illustration of the topic; right now there is only the infobox image as non-free media, but considering the setting of the film I'm at much more of a loss as to what are the best elements to illustrate (a video clip may be warranted, I'm not sure yet.) Any and all comments welcome.

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

First thing, the last Cast paragraph isn't cited.
Now, this was a while ago, but I believe I was reading Shatner's Movie Memories about this film. He noted an incident where Sulu was supposed to meet his great-great-something grandfather as a boy, which Takei really wanted to do. But the child actor was under a great deal of pressure and couldn't do the scene, meaning it got cut. As I remember, this really annoyed Takei. I mention it because, if I've got the details right, I imagine that would be quite a relevant piece to add to the article; I know Takei wanted Sulu to have more depth as a character. Skinny87 (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I imagine that content readily available in the credits and through multiple outlets such as simple cast lists don't really need to be cited; things like uncredited appearances do (and are), as are any facts beyond the simple matter of appearance. The element about the child actor was present in the article, but I removed it as I don't have access to the source right now to verify (it didn't offer a page number). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro1.
I've looked at the first part of the article so far.

Lead:

"the former crew of the USS Enterprise travels to Earth's past in order to save their present from a probe attempting to communicate with long-dead humpback whales." Should it be the crew travel or travels? I'm never sure in this case. Also, the sentence is quite long and packs too much in: "in order to save their present" is a little ambiguous, and "long-dead humpback whales" perhaps needs its own sentence.
"After dissatisfaction with the first screenplay..." Presumably Paramount's dissatisfaction, but needs spelling out.
"assisted in postproduction chores." Chores redundant possibly?
"Almost none of the whales in the film were real..." Would "Few" be better than "almost none"?
"Composer Leonard Rosenman wrote the film's score, which was nominated for an Academy Award." Possibly add this to next paragraph, which mentions other nominations.

Plot:

"The crew use their ship to travel back in time by a slingshot maneuver around the Sun; the plan is to go into the past and return with whales to repopulate the species and answer the alien signal." Possibly change to "The crew use their ship to travel back in time by a slingshot maneuver around the Sun, planning to travel to the past and return with a whale to answer the alien signal." (I seem to remember (correct me if I'm wrong) that the original plan was simply to answer the signal, not to repopulate the species.)
"Arriving in the year 1986, the crew finds that the time travel drained the Bird-of-Prey's power." Maybe it's me, but are the tenses getting confusing here? Also, "that" could probably go. I might be inclined to rework the sentence to "the Bird-of-Prey's power drained by the time travel".
"Kirk and his allies": Suggests some other people are involved, when it was just McCoy and Taylor.
"causing the object to restore Earth": a little vague?
Possibly mention Taylor travelling to the future when it happened rather than at the end.

Cast:

"Shatner was initially unwilling to reprise the role of Kirk until his salary was increased to $2 million and he was promised that he could direct the next film..." A little loose, maybe "until he received a salary of $2 million and the promise he could direct the next film".
..."the part had been created because Shatner had demanded a love interest, something Kirk had frequently had in the television series but that had been absent in the films..." What about: "created after Shatner demanded a love interest, a regular aspect of the television series which was absent from the first three films." I also think the next section of the sentence, about Meyer's explanation, should be in a new sentence.
"The choice for Taylor came down to Hicks and another actress." Name of actress? If it is unknown, maybe replace this sentence and the next part with "Hicks was chosen as Nimoy believed she and Shatner had good chemistry when they met [or had lunch, or a lunch with Nimoy, Shatner and candidates for the role]."
Any reason for the cuts in Barrett's role?

More to follow. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development:

Although the lead says so, it doesn't state here that Nimoy directed the third film. And if he was "asked", who asked him?
Is it possible to add why Nimoy was chosen? Presumably, bosses were happy with his work before?
This section doesn't state when the film was commissioned. It might be useful to say who decided to make it, when producers were put in place, when it was decided to give the go-ahead, etc.
"Whereas Nimoy had been under certain constraints in filming the previous picture...": Is it worth spelling these out?
Overlinking: William Shatner already linked and not sure "time travel", "violin makers" and "oil drillers" need linking.
"but it also meant the film might be panned": not sure about "panned", a little informal.
"Murphy disliked the part, explaining he wanted to play an alien or a Starfleet officer (Nimoy was unaware of this),[11] and chose to make The Golden Child (a decision Murphy later said was a mistake)." Not sure the brackets are necessary, and is Murphy's belief that The Golden Child was a mistake relevant to the article?
"Paramount was dissatisfied with the script": Presumably a person or people in Paramount?
"and Bennett finished with the ending..." Doesn't read well. Maybe "and Bennett completed the final part of the story."
"Meyer and Bennett also cut out Krikes and Meerson's idea of the Klingon Bird-of-Prey flying over the Super Bowl (where the crowd assume it is part of the halftime spectacle) and the hint that Saavik remained on Vulcan because she had become pregnant with Spock's child." I'd imagine this would be the case if Meyer never read the first script! I think this needs tightening up.
"He would write a few pages, go to Nimoy and Bennett and show it to them. After a conversation about the pages Meyer would return to his office and write some more." Maybe change second sentence to "After a consultation, Meyer would return to his office and write some more."
"who offered his own notes and started the rewriting process over again" Does this mean Shatner re-wrote? Or the script was returned for re-writes based on Shatner's notes?
"The completed script was shown to Paramount executives, who loved it." Not sure "loved" is the best word. Were pleased with it?

Design

"Because the original, whalelike probe design did not seem menacing enough, the modelmakers repainted the probe a shiny black and pockmarked the surface for greater texture and interest." Was this before or after the filming described in the previous sentence? If it was after, was the decision made after viewing the film or just on the appearance of the model?
"to wear their future clothing": Should be "futuristic", as future implies clothing they will wear at some point later.

Filming

"The film's opening scenes aboard the starship Saratoga were also the first to be shot" No need for also.
"although the computer monitors in these scenes featured new graphics (the old reels had deteriorated in storage.)" Should the period be outside the bracket or should there be two? And not sure about relevance of computer graphics.
" scene where Kirk is nearly run over by an irate driver required 12–15 cars that had to be repositioned if the shot was not correct, taking a half-hour to reshoot." Presumably this did happen? Maybe rephrase as "required the repositioning of up to 15 cars when the shot was incorrect, taking a half-hour to reshoot".
"The production had planned..." The production team?

I don't really have time to do much more now at the moment, and there is still quite a bit of the article left. One thing I have noticed is an overuse of brackets which disrupt the flow. If such information is necessary as an aside, I prefer mdashes. Otherwise, the article reads fairly well and no obvious problems or shortcomings. Hope this helps. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is invaluable; these kinds of comments are helpful to making me more mindful of issues throughout, so thanks for what you could offer. One thing, you mention brackets—are you referring to parenthesis ()? (I dunno if they're called other things outside the US.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Yes, parenthesis. My mistake! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]