# Talk:Spock Must Die!

Is anyone going to try and fix this horrific looking article? If no one steps forward, I'll take it in hand in a few days. Rhindle The Red (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spock Must Die!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Diderot's dreams (talk · contribs) 15:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll be happy to review this article. Logically, of course. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Review:  
The article seems like a pretty good piece of work: pretty well researched, pretty well organized, and pretty well composed.  I especially liked the number of reviews found.    

The article is well written overall.  Grammar and spelling are almost perfect (with one exception I corrected myself) The layout of the article is proper, the prose clear and concise overall, and follows the required parts of the Manual of Style.  Except the lead-- which I think strays from standards. 

Done. (I feel the lead needs to say something about the plot since a large part of the article is dedicated to it.  Just in general, a sentence or phrase, what the story is about.)
I've added three sentences - if you think its too much then let me know and I'll trim it down. Miyagawa (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. (If we make mention in the lead of the in story references to other works, are these the most important one(s)?)
I've added Finnegans Wake to the lead. That way I'm not having to make the decision. :) Miyagawa (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's just not that important a point to take up that much copy.  I was thinking of using "such as X" and pick an example, the most important one if you can determine it.  Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem - I've reduced it down just to Finnegan's Wake as it was the most prominent reference. Miyagawa (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. (The ISBN doesn't belong in the lead.  Putting it there is an interesting idea, but it isn't standard policy as best I can tell.  Ihe ISBN is available, anyway, in the infobox.)
No problem, I'm removed it. For some reason I got it in my head it was meant to be there. Miyagawa (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. (I don't think the sentence in the lead that summarizes reviewers' opinions is accurate enough.  Though I think the early/later review dichotomy is right on.)
I've taken a second look. Let me know if its better. Miyagawa (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The first problem is the summary of positive reviews doesn't hit the nail on the head.  Only one commented about "Space operas" etc.. Overall, positive reviewers thought it was a good science fiction story involving character duplication.  That's what they agree on, in my opinion.
The second problem is what the Tor.com review is complaining about.  It's not the sexuality per se, rather it's some of Kirk's theories for why the ladies' are attracted to Spock.  The reviewer found some of them offensive in general, maybe misogynistic, and unrealisitic views for people in the future to hold.  That, I think, is what the reviewer is objecting to.  Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I've given it another go. Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
That's fine.  And now I realize that the explanation of Yeoman Rand was the author's, not Kirk's.  Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is verifiable (with one exception) and has no original research. 

Done. (I don't think you have got the reviewer Ellen Cheeseman-Meyer's objections correct.  You might want to review her comments.)
I've added the other element she found unsettling. Miyagawa (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The part about Kirk's explanation of Yeoman Rand is right on, but I don't think the first part, "that the Vulcan duplicate would not have any non-Caucasian ancestry" is correct.  You may wish to reread or even just directly quote the review. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I've replaced it with a direct quote. Miyagawa (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is broad in its coverage, and reflects a summary style.  I have one possible objection:  

Done. (The plot summary doesn't say what ultimately happens to our Mr. Spocks.  It seems like a very important point/aspect, especially given the title of the book, but maybe there is a reason for its omission.  Perhaps giving it out is a spoiler? )
I've redrafted the final paragraph of the plot and added it. Miyagawa (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The articles is written from a NPOV viewpoint and is stable.

The images are appropriate and properly copyrighted.  However:

Done. ( The caption for the image of Spock is irrelevant to the picture.  I understand the reason for the picture-- it illustrates the title character of the book.)
I've changed the caption to make it more about Spock. Miyagawa (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
So the article is On Hold for now, pending improvements.  Best.  Diderot's dreams (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC) 

[A note about the structure of this review:  Items needing improvement are in a bulleted list(s).  Discussion is welcome by making indented comments below the item.  I use Done. and put the original item in parenthesis to indicate I think the item is taken care of, so please don't do anything like that to the original item.]

Thanks for the review, its the first time I've taken a book related article to GA so its good to hear that the formatting etc was correct! :) I'll work through your comments now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I've gone through some of your changes and marked things off, etc.  I haven't got to everything yet.  Best. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Gone though the rest.  Good progress.  Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Review (continued):
Sorry, but coffee and printing out the article have revealed some more stuff that I had to correct, and a bit for you to fix.  With appologies, I'll restart the 7 day hold from today.

There actually were many punctuation issues, and a wrong word used here, and verb tense agreement issue there.  All of these I have dispatched with a minor edit.
Done.  (The sentence He decided to include a death for Spock in the book due to the unexpected popularity of the character in order to surprise readers. and a similar sentence in the Production section, just don't make sense.  They need to be restated.)
No problem - I've given those lines a further copyedit. Miyagawa (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Best, Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think it's clear.  I think the three points are (1) Blish wanted to kill of a very popular character to surprise readers (2) Spock unexpectedly was the most popular, more than Kirk, (3) therefore Blish decided to kill off Spock.
In the Reception section, we could say: Blish wanted to kill off a highly popular character to surprise readers.  Unexpectedly, Spock had been the most popular character in the TV series, more popular than Captain Kirk.  Blish discussed the plot with his wife, Judy, who also preferred Spock to Kirk.  So Blish chose to kill off Spock.
In the lead we can just say: Blish wanted to kill off the popular Spock character to surprise readers.
I think the above prose will express everything clearly. If you agree, can we change the text to the above suggestions? Or do you have another idea?  Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem, I've replaced that text with your suggestions. Miyagawa (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. (Great.  I am reading the changes over, and I see we need to do a little to make the new sentences fit well.  The sentence in the lead Spock Must Die! included references to other works, including James Joyce's Finnegans Wake. hangs out like a sore thumb.  It isn't a terribly important point.  Can we eliminate it? )
I'll get that removed. Miyagawa (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. (In the Production section, there is too big a jump between sentences: In 1968, the children's book Mission to Horatius was published, which was the first novel based on Star Trek to feature an original story.[4] Blish wanted to kill off a highly popular character to surprise readers.  And we haven't said that SMD was the first adult novel.  So can we add For the first novel for adults to the start of the second sentence?  And can we have a citation for the fact that it is the first novel for adults?)
That should be easy enough to do - although it was the first original novel for adults. There had been previous novels for adults (by Blish in fact) but they were all adaptations of the TV episodes. Miyagawa (tWP:IARalk) 13:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work and patience, we're close to done.  Best.  Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
No problems - and really thanks for the review. I'd much rather get an article right than get a quick pass type review. I'll get the edits done tonight when I'm back home from work (ah... the lunch hour). Miyagawa (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi.  I am wondering about further work?  If you are having trouble with the citation for SMD being the first novel for adults, I would accept indirect referencing-- say one to a chronological list of Star Trek novels along with another one stating that Mission to Horatius was a kid's book.  This is a bit of original research, but I think the information greatly improves the article, is an obvious thing given these other facts, and so I'm willing to invoke  WP:IAR and allow it.  Best. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, completely forgot about the edits! I managed to find a reference to it in the preface to Voyages of Imagination. Miyagawa (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Great.  But we are beyond the 7 day hold, even reset by my additional issues.  I'm afraid I have to set a time limit (see next to the On Hold notice).  Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, what's outstanding? Miyagawa (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Nothing!  My mistake-- I misinterpreted your comment as meaning you hadn't made the changes yet.  And I missed the edit on my watchlist.  Sorry.... Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Review Result:
Congratulations, Spock Must Die is now a Good Article.  Diderot's dreams (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)