Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kes (Star Trek)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 June 2024 [1].

Kes (Star Trek)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fictional character played by Jennifer Lien from the sci-fi series Star Trek: Voyager. She is a member of the Ocampa, a telepathic alien species who have latent psychic abilities and a life span of only nine years. Featured in the show's first three seasons, Kes is primarily shown either handling her boyfriend Neelix's jealousy or helping the artificial intelligence known as the Doctor develop his humanity. The character was removed in the fourth season after Lien's unspecified personal issues affected her reliability on set.

Thank you to @J Milburn: for the GAN review back in 2019 and to @Premeditated Chaos: for the help in the more recent peer review. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by David Fuchs

[edit]

Not the Star Trek character I thought I'd see at FAC, but I'm interested in reviewing. I do have some broad opening thoughts on first read, though:

  • Is there are particular reason we start with the development and casting information, rather than an overview? Right now while the lead gives a brief introduction, there's no elaboration on Voyager's premise and the characters met, which I think might be a little backwards; as a Trek fan I don't need that context, but I think that it might dump unfamiliar readers into a lot of behind-the-scenes info without the foreknowledge to get why it matters (for example, the appearances section mentions Kes an an alien with a short lifespan, but we've already talked about that in the development, so it feels weirdly restated, whereas what Voyager is even doing there and why she's meeting all these characters you have to wait for 1300 words before there's any explanation.
  • That makes sense. When the article passed the GAN, it had the following sentence in the lead to provide some context: (Set in the 24th century of the Star Trek universe, the series follows the crew of the starship USS Voyager, stranded far from home and struggling to get back to Earth.) Would it be beneficial to add that information back? I agree it is important to make sure the article can be understood by readers completely unfamiliar with Star Trek.
  • I had originally started the article with the "Appearances" section, but an editor in the GAN review disagreed with this approach so it was changed to fit with the structure more commonly used in fictional character articles (i.e. production information before the summary portions). I could change the order of the sections again if that would help. For a different idea, I could revise the "Creation and casting" subsection so it starts with a brief part about the producers coming up with the show's main concept and then transitioning to the background on Kes as she is one of the first characters created. I would of course be open to any other suggestions or ideas. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally agree with starting with development first in a lot of cases, but I think this is one where you're either going to repeat yourself stating a lot of the premise and details early and then going into more depth later to be accessible, or just putting appearances earlier so you can contextualize the background details makes the most sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense to me. I think it is always important to look at each individual article to see what would benefit that particular topic the most. I agree with the repetition, particularly with the age and alien species designation. Plus, this is about a very specific part of a specific show so a background would be better for an unfamiliar reader than jumping right into production information. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It strikes me as a little weird the reception section talks about positive reception of Lien's acting, versus leading off with the reception of the character itself, especially since the lead highlights the latter more than the former.
  • That is understandable. I was honestly unsure about where to put this paragraph. I heavily revised this section during the peer review process. I could divide the section into two, with one subsection about the character and the other about Lien. It would be similar to what I did with Melanie Barnett. The downside would be that the second subsection would only be a single paragraph. I could also move the paragraph to the end of the section. Please let me know if you have any other ideas though. I have been stuck on this section for a bit to be honest. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As another idea, I could move the paragraph on Lien's acting directly after the more general paragraph about the character. For some reason, I only thought of that option now. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense. I think putting it second makes sense. That way, the section starts off with the more general reviews going from the character to the actor and then to reviews on more specific aspects of the character. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Fuchs: Thank you for your comments so far. Take as much time as you need. You have raised some excellent points. I have pitched some potential solutions above, but feel free to let me know if alternative ideas would be better. Apologies for being more cautious and not directly making changes to the article yet. I just wanted to make absolutely sure first. I doubt that anyone would expected to see this character at FAC, but I do often gravitate more toward the obscure topics so that is probably why. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have given this some more thought. I have added a brief sentence to the lead to give an overview of Voyager, moved the "Appearances" section up, and put the reviews on Lien's acting after the more general one on Kes as a character. I did each in separate edits so that way, it can be easily reverted if deemed unhelpful and the changes can be more easily assessed. I would be more than open to any alternate ideas (like starting with a separate "Background" section). Feel free to revert anything if you disagree. I will avoid making any further major edits to avoid interfering with your review. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. Apologies for typing so much. I was trying to think my way through it and I wanted to be as transparent as possible just in case I was going down the wrong road or there is was a better alternative in mind. I admit that I want overboard. I was probably way over-thinking things. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a bit more that can be stripped out of the appearances section to make it a bit of an easier read and avoid hitting readers with a bunch of stuff that isn't directly relevant to the appearances. Given that they aren't relevant in terms of Key' actual arc, I think I would axe the Maquis being mentioned entirely from the appearances section; likewise Chakotay doesn't actually have any real relationship with Kes (which is interesting to think about in retrospect) so he's not necessary.
  • Removed. I can understand that level of detail is not necessary for this character article. I have seen people discuss Kes not having scenes with B'Elanna Torres or questioning how she would have interested with Seven of Nine, but I honestly cannot think of any real moments between her and Chakotay. It is certainly interesting in retrospect as I had not really considered it or seen it discussed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early drafts had Kes named Dah and portrayed her with an older Ocampa near the end of his life cycle." I'm not entirely sure what this means... she was romantically involved with the other Ocampa? The other ocampa was just another character that was supposed to be a member of the crew? Etc.
  • The only description that we have for the character is they were an Ocampa near the end of their life cycle. There is not any info about their relationship with Kes (or even their gender). I removed this sentence completely as it is not really about Kes and the previous version of her name (Dah) may be too trivial to warrant a mention here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kes's age was a topic of critical commentary" given that a lot of this commentary is from after the show aired and relatively contemporary, is there are reason this is given as past tense?
  • My understanding is that all of this type of reception information is always presented in the past (like how a television was poorly received and not is poorly received). I do not think that I have seen any FAs on even new shows, characters, etc. use present tense in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • References:
  • Spotchecked statements attributed to refs 1, 9, 20, 24, 25, 35, 41, 51, 61, 63, 65, 84, 94, 95, 101, 112, and 115. Didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing. I did find there's some issues throughout with stuff going beyond what the text of the source says.
    • "The later casting call was only for women in their early twenties or younger." attributed to ref 38, quotes Gross & Altman 1995, but the source doesn't explicitly say a later casting call was only for that bracket, it just mentions in casting Lien stood out from said young women.
    • "The cast and crew did not publicly disclose the reason for Lien's firing" is cited to Ruditis 2003 but he doesn't quote the crew or cast say they were hiding something, he just gives the explanation for Lien's firing as based on story reasons based on the producers.
      • Apologies for that. I had meant to cite the Robinson & Wright source. The source makes a point that everyone (italicizing the citation's word choice, not mine) chose to keep the situation around Lien private. Let me know if there needs to be any further clarification on this point. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither ref 24 or 25 don't seem to cover the plot details for the novel in question (I'm not sure what DeCandido is citing there at all.)
      • Apologies for that again. It was a case of me mixing up the DeCandido sources. I thought that I had checked through those multiple times since I had a feeling that I would screw up at least once. I have replaced it with the appropriate DeCandido source which directly talks about the trilogy. The Ayers citation is being used to support the years that the trilogy was published as DeCandido does not explicitly say that is his article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would recommend going through some of the citations and double-checking things haven't drifted from copyediting and the like.
      • Apologies for my mistakes with this as shown above. I greatly appreciate the spot-check. You have helped to improve the article a great deal. I will look through the citations again to double-check everything, particularly ones like the DeCandido citations that could be easily swapped by accident. I completely understand if you think this should be handled outside of the FAC process so feel free to let me know if that would be the case. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't necessarily think the primary citations for plot are used incorrectly, but it feels like secondary sources would be better rather than basing it all on interpretation. Given the Encyclopedia, Companion, etc. this seems like it'd be fairly trivial to do.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • Agreed. I will go through and replace the primary citations with secondary ones. As you have said, there are citations out there that could be easily used for this purpose. It will just take a moment to do so and I will let you know when I am done with that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have gone through and replaced each of the primary sources with secondary ones. It is a good thing that I did that as I caught some silly errors that I made in the plot summary and I believe that I (at least) hopefully clarified some things in a better way. I will do a thorough look through the sources tomorrow as I honestly could use a second away from the article as I have been looking at it for a while today. Aoba47 (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Weirdly, I didn't get this ping, but here I am. I'm a support based on the work done at PR, which I basically treated like FAC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. I likely messed up the ping somehow. I did not get a notification on my end that it went through. Apologies for that. Thank you for your help as always! Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

The only concern I have with the prose is the first sentence of the second paragraph of "Background and introduction", which is quite long. I suggest that this is split into multiple sentences.

Lede and infobox check:

  • "Set in the 24th century of the Star Trek universe," Could not find in the article body
  • "Reaction to Kes was negative;"... "Kes was considered a fan favorite and Lien received positive reviews for her acting." This confused me, as it seems to be saying that reaction was both negative and positive. When I read the reception section, I also got the impression that she was initially positively received. I think the wording needs clarification, with discussion on who and why they reacted negatively and that the reception was split between reviewers.
  • I must have forgotten to update the lead after changing the "Reception" section during the peer review. I have revised it now, but let me know if further work is necessary. The character received mostly negative reviews in what I could find. There is only one positive critic review in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section. I never got the feeling that critics particularly liked the character even from the beginning. There was some negative response to her removal from the show, but that is separate. It seems like viewers liked her more than critics, and I have hopefully clarified that point. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mother and father are not mentioned in the article, so I'm not sure they should be mentioned in the infobox.
  • Linnis is not mentioned in the article, so I'm not sure they should be mentioned in the infobox.
  • Linnis is Kes's daughter from the timeline shown in the episode "Before and After". The article does mention her, but does not name her. That being said, she is a one-episode character and I do not think it is really worthwhile to name her in the prose (and potential give her undue weight) so I have remove her mention in the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her position as "field posting" is not explicitly stated in the article body. I'm not familiar with the franchise, so is this mentioned in the article body?
  • Star Trek often focus on Starfleet officers with rank being important to the character. An example is Harry Kim being an ensign. Kes is not part of Starfleet so she does not have a rank. It seems pretty unnecessary and potentially confusing to point that so I have removed that part from the infobox. I have also removed "Affiliation" and "Posting" parameters as they seem unnecessary as well. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if anything needs further revision. Hopefully, the article was not too confusing to someone unfamiliar with Star Trek. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]

Putting a placeholder and will get to reviewing soon this week. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments/suggestions. I have very few to add, as this seems be in solid shape.

  • its leader Tanis teaches Kes to see and control particles on the subatomic level. -- at the subatomic level
  • Janeway cures her by undergoing a religious ceremony to learn -- I think it much better to say performing a religious ceremony*
  • I agree that "undergoing" is not the best word choice in this context. I went with "participated in" as Janeway is not leading the ceremony and I was unsure if "performing" would give her too much agency or potentially lead to a misinterpretation. Aoba47 (talk)
  • and the 1996 one for "Flashback" by Diane Carey. -- maybe substitute one with something specific like issue or a similar terminology
  • after reading an interview in which Torres's actor Roxann Dawson talked about how the characters rarely interacted -- I think this can be tweaked to something like after reading an interview in which actor Roxann Dawson, who portrayed Torres, talked about how the characters rarely interacted
  • Kes is also in short stories,-- perhaps something like Kes also appeared in short stories or Kes is also depicted in short stories.
  • ranking as the most popular from the show on a Usenet newsgroup. -- is it a Usenet newsgroup listing? Perhaps this can be emphasized.
  • That is a good point. I have adding listing. I am not honestly not super familiar with Usenet so I was mostly relying on the citation. Let me know if there is any way to make it clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rob Owen, writing for the Albany Times Union -- Albany Times Union should be in italics
  • Tembo wrote that Kes and Circle both have the -- you probably meant to write Circe here. Minor typo.

Overall, a well-written coverage of a fictional character, including academic discussions and critical commentaries. Great work here. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pseud 14: Thank you for the review! I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there was anything that I missed or if there is anything else that could be improved. I hope you are having a good weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good. I am happy to support on prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Reviewing this version. Why does #1 not have page numbers? Seems like we have a diverse set of sources - academic papers, Star Trek analysis/monographs, and a lot of episodes. Nothing that jumps out as unreliable or questionable, with the caveat that this isn't a field where I do have a lot of expertise. I remember way back when that it's often a problem that only a few people have written analyses of fictional characters, making it hard to get a comprehensive overview - how many folks have analyzed this one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the review. I did not use page numbers for that source as they were not provided in the Google Books version. I replaced the citation with an older copy of the book from the Internet Archive that does have page numbers (and has the same information). That should make it easier for readers to access the information, and I think the Internet Archive version is better for accessibility anyway.
I would not be surprised if there was more coverage (academic and otherwise) for fictional characters over the years. I do not have an exact number off the top of my head, but I believe that I have exhausted all the relevant (and higher-quality) sources on this character. I have tried my best to go through every type of sources so I did not miss anything. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be addressed. I hope you are having a good weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. I guess the question is how many people have analyzed this character. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I do not have an exact number on how many people have analyzed this character, but I believe that I have exhausted all reliable and high-quality sources for this article. I do not think an exact number would be particularly useful anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde93

[edit]

At first glance this appears to be a solid piece of work, and I don't expect to have many notes. Please feel free to quibble with any copyedits I may make.

  • My first thought is that the plot summary is on the long side. This isn't a film article, obviously, and I don't believe we have guidelines for fictional character bios specifically. But where MOS:FILMPLOT recommends 400-700 words, you're nearly at 1300 here. I'm not asking you to halve the length; there's more plot to cover here, after all. But I would suggest going through the plot to remove details that aren't needed to understand the character or the rest of the article. For instance; I wonder if the sentence about Tom Paris could be omitted.
  • That is understandable. I kept the first sentence about Tom Paris as the love triangle with Kes, Neelix, and Paris as it is an important storyline for all three characters. I reduced the part on "Parturition"; I think it is important to include a brief part on how the triangle was resolved, but I do not think the more exact details are necessary. I removed parts from "Before and After" (i.e. her marriage to Paris, etc.) as all the reader needs to know is that she lived through an alternative timeline. Kes appears in 70 episodes so it is a good amount of information to distill into a section. If there are any suggestions on what can be cut or condensed, then please let me know as I do understand your concern. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as an update, but I had also removed a sentence about the episode "Sacred Ground" with an edit summary that should hopefully explain the rationale behind that move. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to see the beginning of the "on-screen" story signposted more clearly.
  • I have included a part that says the character was introduced in the show's pilot episode, but I would be more than happy to hear any other suggestions or ideas on how to address this point. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of parapsychology in the development section is - unintentionally, I'm sure - misleading, in my view. Parapsychology is considered a pseudoscience. The text needs to be clear about whether any research was into alleged "real" psychic phenomena, into the academic study of parapsychology as a sociological phenomenon, or psychic phenomena in literature (or something else). I'm specifically objecting to the fragment "...to help research parapsychology.[33] Based on these findings, Kes was shown..."
  • I removed "parapsychology". I included it as as the sources references "parapsychological research". I think it would be best to focus instead on what this research resulted in (i.e. a list of psi abilities for the producers to choose from) as that had a more direct effect on the character and is hopefully clearer. Research for Voyager was odd. After all, they did consult Jamake Highwater to help write a Native American character (Chakotay) even though by that time, the controversy around him was already known. Please let me know though if this should be addressed further. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a full source review, but I did a sweep for analytical sources about this character, and I failed to find anything substantive that isn't already covered; nice work.
  • The opening sentences of the last two subsections are a bit woolly, the second in particular. There's also tense mis-matches between the three subsections: "have analyzed", "had varying interpretations", "scholars focused"...some minor wordsmithing may help. Similarly, ", which critics have interpreted in various ways" could probably be omitted (just that fragment).
  • Thank you for catching this. I had a feeling that this would be an issue, but for whatever reason, I was struggling with actually seeing it. I believe that I have addressed this, but please let me know if there is anything I missed. I am not sure why, but I am just struggling a bit with this at the moment. Aoba47 (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it from me; nice work, I expect to support. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vanamonde93: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate it. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there is anything that I either missed or would benefit from further revision. I hope you are having a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyquism

[edit]

Hi Aoba47! I should get to this soon, Saturday at the very latest. By the way, thank you so much for your very helpful review on my FAC; your words were incredibly kind and made my entire week. Please consider this review as an extension of my gratitude :) joeyquism (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and for your help. I greatly appreciate it, and I am glad that I was able to make your week. I am looking forward to your review. Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Aoba47! Much of this happens to be personal preference; I see very little wrong with the way this article is written. Feel free to refuse my suggestions with justification:

  • In "Elogium", emanations from space-dwelling lifeforms cause Kes to prematurely enter a fertile period. - Is it worth it to link the page for fertility here?
  • She used her abilities in earlier episodes, including having visions of a planet's destruction in "Time and Again" and showing an eidetic memory in "Eye of the Needle". - Should "used" be "uses"? I feel as if the past tense here is rather awkward, as the rest of the section is mostly in present tense; additionally, these earlier episodes should still exist and thus would warrant the usage of present tense.
  • In Greg Cox's 1997 novel, The Black Shore, Kes has horrific visions... - Is there any information that expands upon the "horrific visions" mentioned here?
  • The source does not describe the visions. I do know that the "twist" in the book is that the people on the seemingly idyllic planet are actually alien versions of vampires. I did not include this as it is not entirely relevant to Kes as character, but I can include further information if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...but changed to be a medical intern... - Could be "but was later changed to be a medical intern"
  • His initial design was for a pastel-colored costume inspired by a sprite. Producers rejected it, suggesting a costume similar to Peter Pan's. - This is most definitely a matter of personal taste, but I am not too keen on shorter sentences - to me, they disrupt the flow of an otherwise engaging text. I would suggest combining these sentences with a semicolon; perhaps something like "...inspired by a sprite; producers rejected it, instead suggesting..." or similar would be a little better. Again, this is just how little ol' me would write it; you are at total liberty to disregard if you do not feel it is appropriate.
  • ...and as "delicate, beautiful, young". - Add "[and]" before "young"?
  • ...she was key to helping him develop... - Perhaps "key" could be substituted with something like "instrumental" for a more professional tone?
  • In a 2010 StarTrek.com interview, Lien said she preferred "The Gift" as her final episode... - I am not sure of the inclusion of the interview's source, StarTrek.com. I noticed that it links to the page for Star Trek itself; in this case, I think I am more interested in the quotes in the interview itself rather than the source. Perhaps just "In a 2010 interview" would suffice.
  • Other reviewers disliked this change. - I think that a clause about the general criticisms made against this change would benefit this sentence. E.g. "Other reviewers disliked this change, characterizing it as an excuse to avoid utilizing Kes" or something similar? I understand if this is not possible or if it would introduce unnecessary complexities, so feel free to disregard.
  • Comparing Voyager to Homer's the Odyssey - Should just be "Homer's Odyssey"; however, it should be noted that doing this will MOS:SEAOFBLUE the sentence - in this case, I suggest de-wikilinking Homer.
  • Revised. For some reason, I thought it was the Odyssey and not just Odyssey. I kept both links as I think they are important, but I put a descriptor between the two to avoid a sea of blue. Aoba47 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen this show, nor have I interacted with much of the Star Trek series, so I had no prior context going in; however, your descriptions of this character are certainly engaging and make for a wonderful read. I tried to be as comprehensive as I could here, but I tend to be a bit of a pedagogue when an article is of excellent quality when I get to it, so I apologize if my criticisms come off as if they are accounting for minutiae. Nevertheless, once these small points are addressed, I will re-read and likely come back to take a supportive stance. Thank you for a most wonderful read, and I hope you're having a great week! joeyquism (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Joeyquism: Thank you for the review. I am glad that the article made sense and was enjoyable for someone unfamiliar with the show and the franchise as a whole. It is always best to get that kind of review as I could miss some really obvious gaps or points of potential confusion. No need to apologize about any of your comments as I agree and understand all of them. I have addressed everything and left a response to hopefully explain the The Black Shore part. Please let me know if there anything else that can be improved. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Thank you for getting back to me! I've done a re-read and do not find anything else of concern. I'm happy to support this article for nomination. Hope our paths cross again in the near future, and have a wonderful weekend as well! joeyquism (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "she is also shown as having a hidden strength and maturity." Minor and optional: would this read better without the "a"?
  • It would probably be better without the "a" as it would read more like character traits and qualities rather than singular items that she has in her possession. It would also be a better match for the earlier part of the same sentence. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Voyager was airing, Kes was a fan favourite character while critics had a more negative response". Is it possible to having "while" twice so close together?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for catching this. I am not sure how that happened. I have revised it, but let me know if a better word choice is necessary. Thank you for your comments and of course, feel free to let me know if there is anything else that can be improved. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks

[edit]

Spot-checks of a small portion of sources for verifiability.

  • Ref 3 - OK
  • Ref 7 - OK
  • Ref 25 - OK
  • Ref 76 - OK
  • Ref 91 - OK
  • Ref 110 - OK
  • Ref 114 - OK
  • Ref 118 - OK

No concerns from me. FrB.TG (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kes_(Star_Trek)/archive1&oldid=1230916592"