Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tasha Yar/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC) [1].
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review because...The article doesn't meet the modern standard of FA right now. The article is missing a lot of content like its appeareances section for example. When you search for the character in the "news" section, a lot of content needs to be added, mostly for updating. It also used low-quality sources like Tor.com and IndieWire + the prose/writing at reception isn't FA quality. đBP!đ (đ) 02:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not sure what the complaint is about Tor.com (it's fine, as far as I know, at least by pop media coverage standards? but not super-familiar), but even if we take a dim view and presume that it's on par with Forbes Contributor sections, WP:EXPERTSPS applies here. It's only cited once and it's citing Keith DeCandido, who is IMO a leading expert / commentator on Star Trek, and a published author. I've certainly cited DeCandido before elsewhere. (I agree the IndieWire listicle is weak, but it's just one sentence, so I think that can just be deleted.) SnowFire (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: Interestingly, WP:FILMRS lists IndieWire as usable, and it's cited in over 500 different articles, so I'm not sure it's that bad... but I agree that source should go, not because it's IndieWire, but because the article sucks. Went and commented it out. Also added a recent-ish IGN source. For the "Appearances" section, it would probably be better to cite secondary sources than the episode directly, so that DUEWEIGHT can be applied for irrelevant cameos vs. major appearances... but... I suspect this will involve citing DeCandido even more, for the record (as a bit of FUTON bias, although I know there's various dead tree TNG guidebooks out there too.) SnowFire (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: - Do you have any thoughts here? This is more in your topic area. Hog Farm talk 02:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't particularly think it's in bad shape. The only ref I'd remove is TrekToday as it's more a direct fansite than a strongly-edited publication; I'll see if there's a better ref to cite for the same info. I don't see an issue with Tor or DeCandido per above; I'll have to check on additional useful sources to incorporate. I don't see an issue with citing the episodes per WP:PLOTCITE, although I'd argue if the text itself says what episode something happened the reference templates are unnecessary clutter; that said, it would be good to find secondary sources as a matter of determining due weight and seeing if the section should be trimmed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Fuchs: - I see that you've replaced this with another source - do you think that's there anything else that ought to be done before this FAR can be closed? Hog Farm talk 02:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Apparently the 2018 essay collection Exploring Picardâs Galaxy has an essay called "Out of Order: Tasha Yar's Downfall in the Age of Reagan". I have no idea if it's any good or not, but I stuck a library loan request and will see if it has anything usable in the realm of updating the article to the latest. (I also requested the book "Sexual Generations: Star Trek: The Next Generation and Gender" on the theory it might have something interesting, though no guarantees there.) SnowFire (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made various edits; see diff. Can expand further with Peter W. Lee 2018 if desired (e.g. the details of why exactly Yar fits in with the Reagan era, e.g. something about fears of lower class people having absent fathers and the lucky ones finding something to latch onto) but I don't want to let him filibuster everyone else out by virtue of having more stuff directly on Yar. If I was doing this article from scratch, I think that citing the secondary general references on the "Appearances" section might be good (which would help filter irrelevant Yar actions in an episode from relevant ones), but whatever, citing the primary source in the episode itself is not a big deal nor a FA-status breaker. I did not line-by-line check every single ref, but checked some of the major ones and made adjustments, and chucked some of the lesser sources out (although kept a few others). (In particular, if anyone has a better source on "people liked Yesterday's Enterprise and Yar's role in it" than a random newspaper article, that'd be good...) @David Fuchs:, any thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seeing no response above. I hope that my updates with some more scholarly literature have kept the article up-to-date. Some of it is still not quite how I, SnowFire would write an FA (e.g. the mostly primary sourced "Appearances" section) but that's a matter of style with no clear right answer. Happy to make any further adjustments if people feel they are needed. SnowFire (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, generally per SnowFire's reasoning. Hog Farm talk 20:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.