Talk:Star Trek: Lower Decks season 1/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cambalachero (talk · contribs) 18:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• "is set in the 24th century" is kind of unnecessary, it should start with the "follows the adventures of..." bit. This is Star Trek, I think it's safe to assume that even the layman would be aware that it's all set in the future anyway.
  • This is consistent with the other Star Trek season articles and defines when in the future the season is, since the different seasons that are coming out at the moment are in different centuries.
• "Lower decks" is the name of the series, but it's not that widely associated with manual work in everyday talk. So explain things the other way: that the main characters are low-ranking officers, and then that their work is described as being in the "lower decks" within the series. Besides, I just googled "lower decker", ignored the obvious results that are directly related to the series, and... let's just say you may prefer to avoid calling the characters that.
  •  Done
• " The season features many connections and references to past Star Trek series such as The Next Generation". Redundant, you already mentioned that there are similar premises than those from TNG. It may be better to just end the sentence at "past Star Trek series"
  •  Done

Episodes

• "Second contact": You should clarify that, at this point, Freeman being Mariner's mother is a secret known only just by them (it will be relevant later on).
  •  Done
• "Temporal edict": "Freeman later institutes a new mandate named "The Boimler Effect" that encourages crew members to take shortcuts, not blindly follow the rules, and build in "buffer time" whenever they deem fit, much to the chagrin of the by-the-book Boimler." There's no need to explain the jokes in detail, just saying that Freeman relaxed the rules is enough.
  • There is a joke involved here but the details are still important for the plot summary and character details.
• "Moist Vessel": "in an effort to bore her into transferring" sounds confusing. You should explain the context with more clarity, that Freeman promoted Mariner specifically because she knew she would get bored in such a role because of her outgoing personality. You should also mention the Koala, as it gets referenced in later episodes. The reason why Mariner is demoted back to ensign is irrelevant, just point that she's demoted at the end of the episode.
  •  Done
• "Cupid's Errant Arrow": "Freeman completes the demolition of the moon", isn't that a bit obvious?
  •  Done
• "Much Ado About Boimler": a link to Transporter (Star Trek) may be relevant here.
  •  Done
• "Crisis point": "Freeman sends her to the ship's therapist, Dr. Migleemo. Mariner insists that she is fine." It may sound obvious, but clarify that Mariner refused the therapy. Aslo, end the recap at "discovers from it that Freeman is Mariner's mother", Boimler's later reaction is not relevant (despite the panic, he did not reveal that he knows the truth).
  • The fact that it impacts his interview is relevant. I have clarified for Mariner.

Will continue later Cambalachero (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I have responded to your points above. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Production

• When we introduce an actor, director or similar into the text, as Mike McMahan, it is usual to point his previous works. For example, the reference says "...a half-hour animated comedy from Mike McMahan (Rick and Morty)..."
  • This is the case in journalism but I have never seen it done in a TV or film article on Wikipedia, unless there is something specifically relevant about their past work to the current project. For instance, McMahan's work on Rick and Morty is noted later in the article where it comes up as part of critical commentary. But it should not just be noted after his name, without context, as your example suggests.
• "...would be scheduled for release around the other Star Trek series that were being produced for All Access." It wouldn't harm to be precise: after the end of Picard season 1, and more or less concurrently with Discovery season 3, and still to be decided which one would start first.
  • The intention of this line is to indicate that scheduling could delay the series' release even though it would be ready in May 2020. The specifics of which series was released first are explained later in the article where that is relevant.
• The page Professor Moriarty is about the Sherlock Holmes character, and does not mention Star Trek even once. A better link may be Professor Moriarty in other media#Television.
  •  Done
• "Similarly, McMahan described the character of Ensign Fletcher as a dark version of Reginald Barclay from The Next Generation and Star Trek: Voyager since both characters fill the role of being a bad Starfleet officer." Actually, Fletcher is the inverse archetype of Barclay, not a similar one. McMahan said in the reference "We have this character Fletcher where he's kind of like our dark version of Barclay. Barclay was not a great officer, but then when everybody came together and believed in him, supported him instead of being frustrated by him, he was able to find his path. Fletcher is the opposite, not able to do that with the people supporting him and try to work with them, which is why he ends up not in Starfleet at the end of the day."
  • I have re-worded this section.
• McMahan said "Marvel Comics", but the episode and his explanation are about big and fancy films, so perhaps the link should be to Marvel Cinematic Universe?
  •  Done

Will continue later Cambalachero (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Responded above. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• "McMahan saw this as a way to address the modern "re-rise of fascism""... if he's talking about the rise of right-wing political leaders like Trump, Le Pen, Bolsonaro or Milei, Neo-nationalism is a more specific link. But note that to describe it as a "re-rise of fascism" is not neutral, so it may be better to phrase it some other way. Even more, the second quote sounds a bit confusing, the first part is clearly a comparison, but from then onwards was he still talking about the Pakleds, or neo-nationalism? And having in mind that this is not a page about politics but an animated TV series, and that we're not discussing real-world politics but the Pakleds (so we can't really start explaining points of view about that), it may be a better idea to explain, in your own words instead of with a quotation, that McMaham dislikes neo-nationalism and that the Pakleds were intended to be a humorous metaphor of it.
  •  Done
• "and the ship's bridge crew who believe "the show is about them, but it's not""... again, that was just a joke. Just point that the main characters are Mariner, Boimler, Tendi and Rutherford. It was already explained in the previous section that this series is not focused on the bridge's crew, as opposed to most other Star Trek series.
  •  Done
• It's not really needed to keep repeating in full the names of the older TV series in italics all the time. You can say, for example, The Next Generation (TNG) the first time, and then use just TNG each time you need to mention them.
  • We don't do this across the other new Star Trek articles, partly because those abbreviations are often used by fans and it seem more appropriate for an encyclopedia to avoid them. I don't think it is excessive to repeat the subtitles of the shows and it would be a big change to start doing that, but I can raise this at a WikiProject level and try come to some consensus on whether to go make the change to a bunch of articles.
• "In July, Paul Scheer was revealed to have a recurring guest role as Chief Engineer Andy Billups." This comes a bit from out of the blue, we were just talking about Tompkins. Add a small passage to flow from one info to the next, like "The series had other guest appearances, such as..."
  • I don't feel there is a problem with this, there are only two sentences on Tompkins and they start with June 2020, we then go to July for the Scheer info, followed by other recurring guests that were not announced before the show started airing.
• "...and come in yellow for engineering, blue for medical and science, and red for command." Isn't that color style an universal one in the franchise from TNG onwards?
  • For most shows yes, I have noted this.
• "McMahan hoped that references to Star Trek: The Animated Series in Lower Decks would honor it as the franchise's first animated series, and make it "even more canon that it was before" (referencing a long-time fan debate regarding whether the series was officially part of the franchise's canon)." Please rewrite it in a way we can dispense with the parenthesis.
  •  Done
• I always understood that a "legacy character" was a character that replaces in-universe an older character in his public identity (such as when Steve Rogers is left in the past in "Avengers: Endgame", and Sam Wilson, formerly the Falcon, becomes the new Captain America in "The Falcon & The Winter Soldier"). Is the article using some other meaning? Aren't Riker and Troi supposed to be the exact same characters from TNG, just seen in another series?
  • The article is referring to characters returning from the classic shows as "legacy characters", rather than using your meaning (which I have also heard and which Wikipedia has at legacy hero). The wording comes from the source but I will change it to avoid confusion.

Will continue later Cambalachero (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Responded above. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Done, all issues have been fixed. Passing. Cambalachero (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review! - adamstom97 (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)