"stereotypical Star Trek alien character" In the Casting section, the alien character Schultz anticipated to play is a ""a large vein-throbbing, bulbous-headed alien". There is no indication of how this is "stereotypical" of Star Trek.
I don't see that specific phraseology in the sources here, so that was probably some accidental editorializing. I've removed it. — Fourthords | =Λ= |04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"though the higher-ups say" The use of the term "the higher-ups" is kind of vague and doesn't abide with the relatively formal tone throughout the rest of the article.
Abbreviation of The Next Generation as TNG is only used in the lead and once in the Casting section. I took the liberty to eliminate the usage of this abbreviation for consistency with the rest of the article.
That's, of course, fine. I live with these names and initialisms in my brain so much, I threw in the abbreviation-explanation just in case I later used it more often than I realized. — Fourthords | =Λ= |04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox nicknames section could use a ref, since these nicknames are not referenced anywhere else in the article
Do they need to be sourced to something explicitly calling them a nickname, or can they be cited to sources wherein they're used as nicknames? — Fourthords | =Λ= |00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Both episode writer Sarah Higley and series creator Gene Roddenberry have been credited with creating the character of Barclay." needs a ref
I've been told before that when a section essentially has its own lead like this, that WP:LEADCITE applies, meaning the it needn't repeat citations in the rest of the section as it's summarizing. Was that incorrect? — Fourthords | =Λ= |00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Barclay's original character taunted the crew who then had to cope with those revelations" is phrased a bit confusingly. Exactly what revelations? Their weaknesses?
I'm not sure of this one, and I can't find my original copy of the source at this time (I'm mostly packed for moving). It's possible I tried to simplify the magazine's description, or it was equally unclear. Either way, this'll have to wait at least a couple of days. — Fourthords | =Λ= |00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I was worried that if this were a scrapped script, then this wouldn't count as canon, but since the quotation pretty aptly describes his actual character, I guess it's fine. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed links to the following words per WP:OVERLINK: "maturity", "weakness", "taunted", "sarcastic", "stuttering", "shyness", "self-confidence", "character", "fallibility", "script", "eye contact" (please look over other parts of the article to find any other examples I may have missed)
I feel like the sectioning of paragraphs in this section could be better organized into one paragraph for the initial character of Barclay and then a second paragraph for the shift to and description of the more likeable Barclay.
"Schultz was a huge fan..." Another deviation from the otherwise formal tone? Ditto for the later "big fan", unless this is an exact quote from Schultz
The problem with more-formal language in describing fandomness is that they tend towards the more specific than the original source. Do you have a suggestion? — Fourthords | =Λ= |00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In the Star Trek canon, Barclay has appeared in twelve discrete productions from 1990–2001." I'm sure that the notion that Barclay appears in at least 12 productions is supported amply in the text, but this claim still needs a citation to confirm that the number is exactly 12.
Who is Lynne Joyrich? Qualifications as an authority on the subject can be denoted as simply as adding "the author Lynne Joyrich" or whatever their occupation is.
My copy of the original source only includes the prose of the article, so I've included a new source to cite an explanation. — Fourthords | =Λ= |00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Through the embarrassment suffered when the senior staff learned of his depictions of them" Phrased awkwardly here. Should be more along the lines of "Despite the embarrassment he suffered..." rather than "Through the embarrassment"? Also, the later "rises above it all" may not be WP:NPOV?
That feels like it was written independently of the rest as it's duplicative. "Despite his embarrassment" will suffice. "Rises above it all" it pretty summative of what that source says, though I don't think it's necessary given the preceding. — Fourthords | =Λ= |00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Description of "Ship in a Bottle" could provide better context by summarizing how Moriarty was introduced in "Elementary, Dear Data" (preferrably just a few words after "ignorant of season two events"). Can also help clarify the following point...
I guess we can clarify further by saying that this detail was unnecessary to the plot, but that might be pushing the envelope a bit in terms of sticking to the source. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Barclay momentarily questions whether he was still in a simulated reality." Once again, more context is need. Did Barclay question reality anytime before the episode conclusion in order to indicate why he "still" questioned living in a simulated reality?
"Given Barclay's nervous and wiry nature..." "Wiry" is defined to be "being lean, supple, and vigorous" by Merriam-Webster. I don't see so far while reading this how Barclay ever demonstrated being "lean, supple, and vigorous".
"Braga guessed that Barclay had more arachnid ancestors than other crewmembers. Is this the exact wording from the text? The idea of having "more arachnid ancestors" than another person just doesn't make sense. Even if this were a metaphor, it still is a very weird one. I guess the idea that was trying to be conveyed was that Barclay had a more "spider-like" nature than the rest of his crewmates, so unless these are Braga's or the author's exact words, this could probably be phrased better.
Okay, I guess since these are the episode writer's exact quotes, there should be no need to change anything. This does raise another concern in that some other prose in this article might be exact quotes but are not marked as such. I can't really check myself since most of these sources appear offline, so I'll assume good faith and let you check at your own pace. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Brannon Braga decided it would be much more fun to couple Barclay with the Doctor..." "much more fun" could be more precisely explained here. What exactly made Barclay and the Doctor more compatible than La Forge and the Doctor? Also not immediately clear from this paragraph for unacquainted readers that the Doctor and the EMH are the same.
If "much more fun" are Braga's exact words, then this should be in quotes. If that's the case, we can leave it at that, since at first I thought this was the article editor's analysis, which would require more justification. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah… I shouldn't think that's a direct quote, but my paraphrasing. Captains' Logs Supplemental should actually be easier to find, so I'll try to put my hands on it within the next day or two. — Fourthords | =Λ= |13:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Schultz was contacted on a Tuesday, asked if he could come in that Friday, and the actor said, 'Sure.'" This level of detail seems unnecessary.
Maybe, but I really like it. Readers can—and I do—infer that such a short turnaround time indicates an excitement on Schultz's part. Is it truly too much? — Fourthords | =Λ= |00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems out of place, since it's a oddly amusing anecdote in an otherwise formal passage. Up to you whether to omit/edit/leave as is, and this wouldn't affect final GA decision. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In paragraph on "Life Line", it is unclear what exactly is meant by Zimmerman coming to terms with the Doctor. What was he uneasy about in the first place?
"At the last minute, Barclay is able to impersonate his own program and defuse the situation." It should be clarified somehow that Barclay impersonated holo-Barclay to trick the Ferengi. I originally read this (without knowing the plot of the episode), thinking that Barclay somehow impersonated himself to the Voyager crew, and got confused.
"Later, Barclay alerts Admiral Paris (Richard Herd) to the distribution of the Doctor's holonovel." The significance of this plot detail is unclear.
Ah, that's because the Barclay importance to that episode is pretty minimal. Withouth breaking out the DVDs right now, I recall that Barclay does the thing, and then later does another thing, but he's not very front-and-center in the episode. — Fourthords | =Λ= |00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does Barclay help Janeway travel back in time to do? The significance of this deed could use more clarification, especially given the level of detail for TNG events.
His presence in the episode is fluff for the most part, actually. He's present at a gathering of former Voyager crew, he's a lecturer at the academy, he provides Janeway with data and a shuttle she needs, and the later he confesses to the Doctor what she's planning (to no avail). I've included the data & shuttle details. — Fourthords | =Λ= |00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed more unnecessary links. Feel free to revert.
Found a number of contractions in the prose of this section, as well as throughout the rest of the article, which I fixed myself. However, it would do some good to look over the article again yourself.
Citations in Character history/plot summary are optional I guess since the primary source is the only relevant source, but it couldn't hurt to add more citations to uncited paragraphs using the existing sources (the TV show guides, for example)
Oh, I certainly don't object to thorough sourcing, but I've actually been told not to cite such things before because of mumblesomethingreasonsidon'thonestlyremembermumble. Anyway, all the ones that needed them now have shiny new citations. — Fourthords | =Λ= |04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for non-canon appearances list
Okay, this one's more difficult because I don't have all of them on hand to cite. I'll have to work on these over the next few days; I absolutely can't source them all tonight. Watch this space. — Fourthords | =Λ= |04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this point here to be **less** important than the previous one, since technically speaking, the references/sources are the items being listed themselves. Regardless, if it doesn't require too much effort, feel free to cite, but this wouldn't affect the final GA promotion. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, speaking of importance, are these example so lesser important that they can otherwise be excluded if they rather lack citations? It seems iffy to claim the character is in these novels/etc: somebody would have to potentially read the entire novel to verify that claim. Also, I have no way of knowing my memory was sufficient enough to make this a comprehensive list, and I make no claims to it being so; if it were simply even less-comprehensive, but reliably sourced, I think that's the better way to lean on this one. — Fourthords | =Λ= |17:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of this way of going about it?I'll also note that 109.79.167.27 (talk ·contribs) removed the ((unreferenced-section)) that I'd added in the interim, saying that This section is literally a list of sources. It makes no factual claims other than that these books exist. It is not clear what references you could possibly want for this list, it makes little sense to tag it as unreferenced. We are, of course, claiming that the Barclay character is written within the pages of every one of these sources, but I wanted to make sure you'd seen this edit. — Fourthords | =Λ= |00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I certainly do see this as simply a list of sources. Just as we assume good faith for offline sources, I guess we have to assume good faith that the editor who listed these books actually read them and found Barclay in them. I guess at this level, unless we have specific page numbers or a reliable third-party list, sourcing this list individually using the primary sources would be redundant. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel like the phrase "winds up" here to be informal (Google also lists the phrase's meaning of "arrive or end up in a specified state, situation, or place." to be informal). This kind of sounds like quote from the source though, given both the original contraction and the non-encyclopedic tone, so just want to check we don't have another case of the non-extended Braga quote from before? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! That never occurred to me. I've no qualms about simply excising that. I will never disagree with anyone critiquing my propensity for wordiness! — Fourthords | =Λ= |13:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Section is rather short, but I do see a potential merge with the Analysis section, since elements of Analysis (like how the Star Trek fans related to Barclay) also seem relevant to Reception
I can see a little overlap, but the Analysis is more about dissecting the character, and Reception is more about how well was he liked. The former section talks more about 'here's what these pieces of analysis say with regard to how fan's should receive the character based on how he's written and acted-out'; the latter is more 'here's the actual reactions of actual people'. Does that make sense? — Fourthords | =Λ= |04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do understand the differentiation now. I was just slightly concerned that the Reception section might be a little short, especially given the impact of the character on the fans (so far, the section mainly consists of Star Trek rankings). Perhaps you can add (or move from other sections) some reception-related quotes from the actors or the producers/writers of the show? Looking at the Memory Alpha page for Barclay already shows a number of these quotes, so I'm pretty sure there are more out there. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer, are you sure? In general that ordering would make sense but in this specific case the creation of the character seems to have come after the casting. -- 109.79.167.27 (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that I'm remembering what I read in the sources and not what was in this Wikipedia article. The interview [1] is ambiguous and open to interpretation. The question "were you specifically chosen for it" suggests the character came before the casting of Schultz, but his conversation with Goldberg suggests that he indirectly let the producers know he was interested in being on the show before any specific role was ever considered. -- 109.77.204.213 (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First mention of Dwight Schultz in the body should be full name + linked; any following mentions can be stylized at the writer's discretion in a consistent manner
I think you're saying that Schultz is linked too often, and that's probably because of building the article all out-of-order when I did it. Now, is it strictly forbidden to link more than once, though? Because I can see an argument for doing so at several points in a long article which might be linked-to at different section headings. — Fourthords | =Λ= |04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First mention of series titles and film titles (e.g. Star Trek: Voyager) can be mentioned in full and linked when first mentioned in the lead, body, or even section, but closely thereafter, should be consistently referred to either by their full name or by the shorter names (e.g. just Voyager)
I do see that now, but I was trying to infer some sort of precedence (if any) from existing GA-articles in WP:Star Trek (see Star Trek#Voyager (1995–2001)). I guess in this case, since the USS Voyager' is more prevalently mentioned, we can just consistently use the full show titles for Voyager (which then raises the question, should TNG be mentioned in full)? It just seems kind of weird that sometimes it's Star Trek: Voyager and sometimes it's just Voyager in the article, and the WikiProject and previous articles don't seem to have a clear solution to this. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just generally tried to be as clear as necessary at any given time while considering which truncation I had used most recently. — Fourthords | =Λ= |17:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, the article is well-written, well-cited, broad, and neutral. Illustration is hard to come by due to copyright, so I don't think that should be a problem here. My main concerns are regarding some relatively minor prose issues, but besides that this article is well on it's way to GA. Putting on hold until July 30. (I am willing to provide an extension given the number of comments I left as well as my own tardiness) GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 19:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to hit everything you brought-up, but please chastise me if I've missed anything. An extension may be needed: this review took off faster than I expected, and I'm up to my elbows in selling a house and moving, a process that will leave me living out of boxes with but two pieces of furniture by 9 August. I'll do my best to keep up, but finding sources as I've mentioned may take some doing and/or time. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= |00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fourthords: Yes, definitely. I would be willing to promote even before all of the points have been addressed, since not all are particularly vital to the article's promotion. So far, the major outstanding points that need to be addressed and prioritized are as follows:
Whether Conception came before Casting needs to be ascertained. If that is true, than nothing needs to be changed. If that is not, then some restructuring/clarification is needed in the article since the current order implies Conception came before Casting.
Citations for "In the Star Trek canon, Barclay has appeared in twelve discrete productions from 1990–2001."and the nicknames
Expand Reception (even by a few sentences is fine, just anything not ranking-related)
I haven't seen any sources alleging that the character was written for Schultz, so barring additional sources, I think Conception → Casting makes better logical sense. Nicknames are cited, and counting the exntants is pending a couple of days. Expanding Reception may take a little longer, though an IP editor added some. (Please forgive my minor reformatting of this section to meet MOS:LISTGAP. I just removed the initial bullet since it was the only base-level point in this section.) — Fourthords | =Λ= |13:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten to the point in my household move where I absolutely cannot hope to find the sources we're discussing. From now, I probably won't be in a position to find them for another month at this point, which leaves four of your GAN concerns in limbo. I'll have occasional time to try and find other copies (libraries, etc.), but I can't guarantee I'll find what I need—as opposed to my own copies. I don't know how long you're amenable to leaving this on-hold, and while I can promise it's still on my plate, I'm not hopeful for progress before the month is up. What say ye, sir? (For what it's worth, I have an online source jotted down for adding to "Reception", but that's one step out of many needed.) — Fourthords | =Λ= |02:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fourthords: Thanks for your update. I'm not very clear on how long GA reviews are "allowed" to run without input. I personally don't mind keeping it open that long, but since I've listed this in the July backlog drive, I don't think the coordinators would be too happy if I kept this open for over a month. Would it be okay for you if I closed this review now, and you can renominate once your move is over and you've finished the points? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the points are yours, if we suspend the GAN for now, would it be possible to just hit you up when I'm back in action, and you'd be able to hit resume on the process? (FWIW, I was stupendously surprised that you got to the review as quickly as you did after my nomination. I'd assumed I wouldn't see a reviewer until September at the earliest. I never ever expected this to intersect with my real-life move!) Thanks, — Fourthords | =Λ= |14:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]