Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mind Meld/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Mind Meld

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2001 documentary film in which William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy discuss Star Trek and its effects on their lives. The article has undergone a copyedit by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, and has passed a good article nomination. I have searched through several journal databases to ensure that the sourcing of this article is comprehensive. It is unfortunate that Shatner's alleged flatulence is the most commonly discussed element of this film in the literature, but we must be true to the sources. Neelix (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

I'll mainly focus on prose issues although I might check some of the references if there are any problems with them. I'm certain somebody else will check the more technical points to this article but for now I'll list what I see here... I reviewed this GAN when Leonard Nimoy was still alive :'( ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"that Nimoy first publicly revealed that he had struggled with alcoholism while he was acting in Star Trek: The Original Series" - I think that Star Trek could be safely cut to avoid repitition of "Star Trek: The Original Series" in the lead, what do you think? I'm not too sure on this...

I have shortened the phrase to The Original Series. This solution retains the specificity while avoiding the wordiness. What do you think? Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It works well, thanks! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph in the lead could open on what overall critics thought about the film. For example something like "Mind Meld was recieved mixed/negative reviews from critics and fans..." etc?

Done. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the reception paragraph in the lead mentions nothing on how the video quality was praised and the criticicms on the DVD functionality and features (which is mentioned in the reception section)

I have swapped this sentence with the one about Blame It on the Dog, thereby also de-emphasizing the flatulence topic. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"They only mention one of these cast members by name: Nichelle Nichols, who portrayed Nyota Uhura" - is this refering to the Original Series cast or any of the six films?

I have reworded the previous sentence so the Original Series cast is specified. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Nimoy had expressed concern about Kidd's alcoholism and warned Shatner about marrying her. Shatner says that he is conscious of his own mortality" - did he say this after Nimoy warned him of his wife? This sounds like a direct reply

I have reordered these sentences so the mortality comment doesn't sound like a reply to Nimoy's warning. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"which offers such features as the Shatner and Friends fanclub's quarterly newsletter" - should this be "such as the" or is it comparing Shatner's website to the quarterly newsletter? Or is that newsletter part of Shatner's website? I'm confused!

I have reworded this sentence to make it clear that the newsletter is one of the features offered on the webite. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"even though Nimoy is only four days older than Shatner" - but Shatner is older than Nimoy?

Thank you for catching this mistake! I have corrected it. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In the film, Shatner referred to Star Trek: The Original Series as "cartoonish" - is this part of Mind Meld itself or Wil Wheaton's EarnestBorg9?

I have moved the sentence about EarnestBorg9 elsewhere to avoid the confusion. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions, Jaguar! If you have any more, I would be glad to receive them. Neelix (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing them all Neelix! I think I was going to leave some more comments last night but having looked through the article again now (as well as seeing the improvements made) I think that those are most (if not all) of the glaring prose issues out of the way. Some of them were minor. I'm happy with the prose side of things, so I will support this transition from GA to FA. It's a good article, and I think it has a real chance of passing this FAC. I checked the references during the GAR and they all appeared to be formatted correctly. No doubt somebody else will check them over again, but in the mean time good luck! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cliftonian feedback

Support. Delegates please note that I have carried out a source review in the capped section below (including a couple spotchecks, but mostly not). — Cliftonian (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from — Cliftonian (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*"in the 1960s science fiction television series Star Trek: The Original Series" seems a little repetitive. Perhaps "on television in Star Trek: The Original Series in the 1960s, and in the subsequent film franchise." As an aside—when did TOS start to be referred to as such? Was it not originally just called Star Trek?

"several of the other cast members in the series who disliked Shatner" perhaps "the several fellow cast members who disliked Shatner"? Also, is it widely accepted that these people did not like Shatner, or is it Shatner's own perception (or someone else's) that they did not like him?
We use the wording "struggled with alcoholism" twice in three lines, verbatim. I suggest mixing it up a little.
"a mind meld being a telepathic link" why not wikilink mind meld here?
Why do we use the word "flatulate" instead of simply saying Shatner (allegedly) farted? Seems overly delicate to me.
"Shatner denied this allegation." perhaps "Shatner has denied this allegation in multiple interviews."
"people who heard that the film includes the sound of Shatner flatulating" perhaps "people attracted by the alleged fart from Shatner"
Is the DVD cover shown the original DVD cover in the US, or what? I think "DVD cover" is a bit too vague a description myself.
Why not list the four producers on different lines? This would be in my opinion easier to read.
"The film focuses on the effects that the media franchise had on Shatner's and Nimoy's lives" What's a "media franchise"? We mean Star Trek as a whole?
"when Shatner is talking about the other Star Trek actors' dislike of him" again as above, is this just his opinion?
"including his fears regarding the legitimacy of consistently portraying an extraterrestrial and other struggles with his acting career at the time" we mean Nimoy, right? (Kirk is human?)
"after divorcing Zober in 1987 and marrying actress Susan Bay in 1988" perhaps "since" rather than "after"
"Shatner says that Star Trek was the reason for his divorce from Gloria Rand, his first wife" why?
"some of whom were Star Trek actresses" presumably he doesn't name names?
"He also talks about the death of his father, Joseph Shatner,[2] and of his third wife, Nerine Kidd, who accidentally drowned in a pool[6] in 1999[11] after struggling with alcoholism.[4]" why is this sentence chopped up with references like this? why not just put them all at the end, or combine them?
Why is sexual partner linked? Who doesn't know what that is?
In the first image caption, perhaps make clear that this picture is from the time of the original series. Also I'm not sure the wording "romantically involved" is appropriate as the prose refers to a "succession of sexual partners", which somewhat dissipates the romantic aspect of it in my mind. Perhaps "Leonard Nimoy (left) and William Shatner as Spock and Kirk in a 1968 photograph. In Mind Meld, Nimoy reveals that he struggled with alcoholism while filming The Original Series, and Shatner claims to have had sexual liaisons with several Star Trek actresses."
We say "The entire runtime of the film is taken up by Shatner's and Nimoy's conversation", but also describe Billy West providing narration. What narration does he provide?
We say a mind meld is "a telepathic link that Spock, a Vulcan, is able to create with other organisms" but if I recall correctly—it's been a long time since I watched Star Trek and I only really watched The Next Generation—isn't a mind meld something all Vulcans can do, as opposed to just Spock? (and isn't Spock only half Vulcan?)
"In an interview with the New York Post" when?
"You're the captain! You outrank him! It's your responsibility!" needs an inline citation directly after as it's a direct quote
Perhaps mention that Wil Wheaton played Wesley Crusher (curse him!) on The Next Generation
"That April" which April?
I would rearrange the "Reception" section a little. It seems odd to end on the note that the trailer was, we are told, hilarious.
No source is given for the film being 75 minutes long or for the cinematographer (Biggs) or editor (Pank).

Thanks for the read. Hope this helps — Cliftonian (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review, John! I believe that I have implemented most of your suggestions. The exceptions are listed below, along with responses to the questions you asked:

I don't know exactly when the retronym Star Trek: The Original Series came into use; it may have been during the animated series years, or possibly not until Next Generation. Either way, I understand your point that this name is a retronym and I have removed it from the lead but have kept it in the body, where it is more difficult to remove due to the ambiguities that would arise as a result. Do you object to the use of this retronym in the body?
It is widely accepted that several of Shatner's fellow cast members did not like him. Do you feel that a footnote would be justified in order to identify the relevant individuals known to dislike him?
I would prefer to use the term "flatulate" in this article because "fart" seems to me to be unnecessarily vulgar, and not in the tone of an encyclopedia; the Flatulence article is not called Farting, which is, I assume, for this same reason. Nonetheless, if you feel strongly on the issue, I will switch the relevant words to "fart" and its derivatives.
In the sentence, "The film focuses on the effects that the media franchise had on Shatner's and Nimoy's lives," the reference is to Star Trek as a whole: the 1960s television series and the subsequent films in which they acted, but also the Star Trek conventions that arose and the sheer popularity of the Star Trek universe and its cultural impact.
I watched the film through again today, and Shatner does not name any of the Star Trek actresses with whom he had sexual liaisons.
I don't have a source for Biggs or Panik being the cinematographer and editor respectively, although they are listed in the credits of the film as having worked in those capacities. If that isn't sufficient, I can simply remove their names from the infobox.

I hope I have responded satisfactorily to your concerns. I appreciate your comments and would be glad to discuss any of these issues further. Neelix (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again David. I have copyedited the article a bit more and rearranged a bit; I hope this is all to your liking.

Regarding the retronym, how you have put it in the lead is fine. I have attempted a different solution in the body which I think works—"the 1960s television series (later retitled Star Trek: The Original Series)". I hope you are okay with this.
Regarding them not liking him, I think it is enough just to say they say in Mind Meld that others didn't like him. I've put that they "attest to other members of the Original Series cast disliking Shatner".
For Biggs and Panik, why not just source to the film credits themselves? Use Template:Cite AV media and put the time their names and roles are visible on screen.
Regarding "flatulate", I will call in another opinion from User:Dank, who I consider something of an authority on this kind of thing. I will defer to his judgement.

Here's the Google ngram for flatulence and flatulate. Clearly, you want flatulence ... well, you know what I mean! - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dan. The issue remains, however, what should we use for the verbal form? — Cliftonian (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Dan says we should stick to noun usages only and just use "flatulence". He also says "flatulence and flatulate are used more than they're needed in the lead, to the point where they become a distraction, and the incident is attributed to someone else's opinion in the lead, but not attributed in the text below the lead. (I'd probably do without the attribution, if you're careful with what you're asserting.)" — Cliftonian (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David for your quick and friendly responses. — Cliftonian (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your copy edits look great, John. I have added the citation for Biggs and Panik. I have also reduced the number of instances of the word "flatulence" throughout the article and removed all instances of the verb forms of that word. The word "flatulence" now appears only twice in the lead and six times in the body. Please let me know if you would recommend any further changes. Neelix (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I've just noticed my point for Biggs and Panik also applies for the four producers. Also I see the language of the film is given as "English". Are you really telling me not one word of Klingon is uttered in over an hour? ;) — Cliftonian (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see locations for the references. How is one to know "The Press" is a New Zealand paper and "The Province" is British Columbia? — Cliftonian (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you requested the locations for the references, John; I don't think I had realized before how many different countries these sources are coming from. The locations have been added, as has the citation for the producers. And yes, sadly, no Klingon. :) Neelix (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again David. I hate to be pedantic but there are still some references without locations given. All the books, for example. Also, perhaps explain briefly that a tribble is a Star Trek in-joke. I'd never heard of them. Another thought—since the alleged flatulence sound is the subject of specific discussion in the article, could we perhaps put a sound clip in the article under a fair use licence? I think this would do better than the picture of Howard Stern, who is only tangentially relevant. It would improve the article a lot to actually be able to hear this noise we keep talking about. (For other reviewers: someone's already made clips here if you're interested in hearing this noise.) — Cliftonian (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought to add an audio clip of the sound before. I think it improves readers' understanding of the subject considerably. Thanks for making the suggestion, John! The clip fits comfortably without removing the image of Stern, so I left it there. I have gone through the references again and I believe that they all now have locations; please let me know if I have missed any. I have also added a footnote clarifying what tribbles are, along with a new source that covers this information. The article improves each time you make suggestions, so feel free to make more! Neelix (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I've put the stuff about the egregious Wesley Crusher into a footnote if that's okay. Also looking at the source material myself I see Wheaton's troupe actually already existed at the time, so I've changed that. I've rearranged a little and done some copyediting. I hope this is all okay with you. I think the article looks good now and am happy to support above. Well done David and thank you for the nice change of pace. I hope you're doing well, and have a very happy Easter. — Cliftonian (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the support, John! I apologize for having switched out the Crusher footnote before reading your comments here; you are correct that the troupe existed with the name "Mind Meld" prior to the film's release, and I appreciate your picking up on my error. I don't think the sentence works as a footnote, but we can discuss further if you disagree. Thanks again for your thorough review; the article looks much better as a result of your suggestions and copy editing. Neelix (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I've reworded a bit and I think it works now in the body. — Cliftonian (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Well put together article - like the mix of reviews given.--Iztwoz (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Happy to offer some thoughts. I'm no Trekkie, but did watch a lot of Voyager (sorry) as a kid.

"An unintended sound in one scene of the film became a popular subject of flatulence humor among Star Trek fans and on morning zoo radio programs. Shatner denied being the source of this sound in multiple interviews; he and Mind Meld's director, Peter Jaysen, attributed it to equipment on set." This seems to come out of nowhere; perhaps you could open with something like "The film is remembered for..." or "The film attracted some notoriety" or something.
Direct quotes always need citations, even in the lead and image captions
Be aware of MOS:LQ- I changed one but self-reverted. I thought it better to leave it to you.
""It took me a while," he says, "but I got rid of all that anger when I realized that I never had to worry about work ever since Star Trek went on the air."[6]" Who's the "he", here?
"He developed "a major drinking habit, " How about a tense shift to "He had"?
"say this had repercussions" Similarly, how about "has had"?
"williamshatner.com, which offers features" How about "offered"? It doesn't really matter what it offers now, just what it did offer at launch.
"Shatner said that another reason they decided to make the film was because Nimoy was visibly getting old, even though Shatner is older than Nimoy by four days, both born in 1931." "even though" doesn't work here- Shatner being older than Nimoy has nothing to do with the latter looking old. Also, "both having been born"?
"Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels" Is this notable? Don't be scared of redlinks! Same for the production company.
"Howard Stern played the sound on his radio show several times,[2] including when Shatner appeared on the show on November 13, 2001,[29] to promote his upcoming television series Iron Chef USA.[14]" You need to lose the second comma. If you'd rather not have a reference without punctuation, just move both footnotes to the end of the sentence. (Hidden comments can clarify what is referenced to what, if necessary.)
"Shatner's website made a similar claim, attributing the noise to a squeaky jib." Websites can't make claims. How about "A similar claim was made on Shatner's website"
"O'Brien riposted" Too prosaic, for me.
"people interested in hearing Shatner's flatulence, a sound which Brown said can be clearly heard" This implies that the sound heard is Shatner. This seems non-neutral.
I think the Jim Dawson stuff belongs in the "Alleged flatulence" section rather than the reception section

Seems like a really nicely researched article. I was surprised how many details of one detail there were, but it was all well sourced. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review and comments, Josh! I have implemented all of them except one: I didn't remove the second comma in the Howard Stern sentence because I believe that this portion of the Manual of Style suggests that it should remain. Please let me know if you disagree; I may be interpreting the guideline incorrectly. Feel free to also tell me if there are any of your concerns that I haven't adequately addressed, or if you have any more that you would like to voice. Neelix (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I offered poor advice: I meant the third comma, the one after "2001". If that is still required in the date formatting, then perhaps the sentence could be reworked to have the date at the end? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the sentence as you recommended, Josh. I hope this solution addresses your concern. Neelix (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been out of town for a couple of days. I'll try to find time to look into this soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've made some final minor tweaks and I'm now happy to support. A well put-together article. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

they had with Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, and with the several fellow cast members who disliked Shatner. - ambiguous; could mean Gene Roddenberry was the creator of Star Trek, or that they had trouble with Roddenberry, an unnamed creator, and cast members. Em or Endashes would probably work better.
I think the critical reception is too detailed in the lead.
No mention of TAS? They voiced the characters there, too, even though the TAS was retroactively considered non-canon.
accidentally drowned in a pool in 1999, losing a battle with alcoholism. - is the conflation really appropriate?
fascinating - good choice of words *raise eyebrow*
It was moving, Perry wrote, to see the two actors talk about their personal lives with such vulnerability—particularly when Nimoy discusses his experiences with alcoholism. - direct quote?
And Josh, no need to be ashamed of watching Voyager. At least it was better than Enterprise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Crisco 1492! I implemented the dashes as you suggested, shortened the critical reception in the lead by removing the DVD Talk review sentence, added a mention of TAS, and reworded the Perry sentence so that it is clearer that the statement isn't a direct quotation. The sources conflate Kidd's death and alcoholism because Kidd drowned while intoxicated; please let me know if you feel that action is needed on this item. Neelix (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Those were the only issues I could find. Good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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