[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Gene Roddenberry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGene Roddenberry has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 23, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
March 15, 2016Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 4, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after Gene Roddenberry left the production of Star Trek in 1968, he attempted to turn Isaac Asimov's I, Robot into a film?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 19, 2019, and August 19, 2023.
Current status: Good article

"populistic philosopher and futurist"?

[edit]

Is there a source for the description of Roddenberry in the intro as a philosopher and a futurist? Wikipedia's "Futurist" article describes futurists as scientists, social scientists, or people who have been consulted by private and public organizations about the future. As far as I know, Roddenberry has never been a consultant on anything other than the arts (specifically film and television). Also, though there are many philosophical ideas reflected in Star Trek episodes, Roddenberry was not, himself, known as a philosopher. He certainly had a philosophy, but so does everyone else, and while his ideas were progressive, none of them were new and original contributions to any philosophic study. His award from the AHA is an arts award rather than a pioneer award for a reason. I'm not even sure "populistic" is a word ("populist" is the adjectival form of "populism"). Unless a source is provided, I will edit this.67.4.197.220 (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gene Roddenberry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 08:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time

Closed as not listed on request. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Comments on GA criteria

[edit]
Pass
I have uploaded a crop: File:Gene Roddenberry crop.jpg. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Query
  • The article is richly provided with images, though consideration could be given to how relevant they are, and how much they are needed. What encyclopedic value is there in having an image of Erle Stanley Gardner, for example. There are three images of planes -why is there one of a Lockheed, which is not mentioned in the main text? Some of the captions would benefit from attention - for example, the caption "Nichelle Nichols as Uhura in 1967" doesn't tell us why there is an image of her in an article on Gene Roddenberry. Two captions are possibly too long - the two of the Star Trek crew. See WP:Captions for guidance. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is richly cited, and most stuff I'm spot checking is fine, but I'm having trouble with the animated series section, in which Roddenberry told Nimoy that "he was the only member of the main cast not returning"; there is an end of paragraph cite to Joel Engel's book that I'm unable to access so I can't check if the details about the "deception" come from that book. My research indicates that Nimoy did insist that Takei and Nichols were involved, but I'm not turning up anything about Roddenberry misleading Nimoy about that. Because this is a negative comment on Roddenberry's character, I'd like to see that accusation of deception backed up by another source, one I could check, or the section rewritten to follow the standard commentary on the incident, such as this, in which there is no mention of a deception. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are more negative details about Roddenberry's life which are sourced to Engel - that he took drugs. This review of the book indicates that it is an unauthorised biography, and only Nimoy agreed to be interviewed. How reliable is this book? In the authoritative voice of Wikipedia we are saying that Roddenberry was a liar and that he took a series of illegal drugs. If there is only Engel saying this, then I think we should be making clear it comes from one source. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fail
  • To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. The lead contains information that he was a "populistic philosopher, and futurist", but this is not mentioned in the main body. Inforamtion about Star Trek is pushed to the end of the lead, while less essential information on his place of birth and early career is prioritised in the first paragraph. There is a section on religious views in the article which is not mentioned in the lead, etc. The lead needs to more accurately reflect and summarise the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not yet fully read and analysed the article, though I am finding it goes into unnecessary detail in places. It is unusual to mention the doctor who delivered the subject, even if he also delivered the subject's mother - such colouring is acceptable for a full biography, but not for a general encyclopedia where the aim is to be selective, and present only the essential information. This casual anecdotal approach continues through his military service. For example: . After graduating, he travelled to March Air Base and signed up for the Army Air Corps; due to the lack of training spaces his entrance was delayed. For the remainder of the summer, he attended Peace Officer training at the University of California, Los Angeles as an Army cadet. In the days following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Roddenberry received a telegram with orders to attend Kelly Air Force Base,[ enlisting on December 18, 1941. Following the completion of boot camp, he was sent to Corsicana, Texas for pilot training by civilian instructors. He completed sixty hours of flight time there, including thirty-two solo hours. In March 1942, he moved to Goodfellow Field (now Goodfellow Air Force Base) in San Angelo, Texas for basic flight training where he flew a Vultee BT-13 Valiant. Roddenberry graduated on August 5, and was commissioned as a second lieutenant. This is summarised at roddenberry.com as He volunteered for the U.S. Army Air Corps in the fall of 1941 and was ordered into training as a flying cadet when the United States entered World War II. The article is 61kB, the point at which it is recommended an article should be considered for splitting or reducing in size. I'm putting this here as a query as I've not yet finished reading - I suspect I may conclude that the article does need trimming in order to assist the general reader get to the essential facts. Encyclopedia articles are for essential facts; biographies are for additional details and colouring. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On finishing the review I have moved this criteria into a fail. The article contains too much unnecessary and intricate detail. The article needs trimming to the essential facts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]


Hold

[edit]

This is a readable and interesting (if a little long-winded) article on Gene Roddenberry. It is well written and meets most of the GA criteria. There are some quibbles and queries mentioned above, and two fails - the lead needs a rewrite to meet part of Criteria 1b - MoS: WP:Lead; and trimming of non-essential details and colouring to meet Criteria 3b - Focused. Review on hold to these issues to be addressed/discussed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, can you fail the nomination at this time. I'm going to have to take a look at whether to content split away some of the sections in order to save some of that detail somewhere. Miyagawa (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gene Roddenberry/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 18:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll field this one, if I may. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article appears to be properly sourced. It does, however rely fairly heavily on Alexander's biography; that won't affect it at this stage although it would be worth considering supplementing Alexander with Engels and Van Hise in much of the article if taking it forward. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Alexander biography goes into a great deal more detail than the other two, while Engels is pretty good for criticism. I don't rate the Van Hise book too much, but I included some references to it simply to try to break up the Alexander book a bit. Miyagawa (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could do with a Peer Review to focus on prose issues. For instance, in the lede there are a few fairly repetitive passages. "Later he followed in his father's footsteps and joined the Los Angeles Police Department and also began to focus on writing scripts for television" over-uses "and", while "However, the syndication of Star Trek led to its growing popularity, which in turn led to Star Trek feature films" over-uses "led". There are a few places where commas are needed. I'd advice having a close read through the prose to remove any duplicate words and ensuring that the punctuation is correct. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eileen is mentioned in the article prior to being properly introduced in the "Personal life" section. I would recommend adding mention of Rodenberry's magic at the chronologically appropriate juncture of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isaac Asimov is mentioned, but no explanation is given as to who he is. Many readers may be unfamiliar with this, so it might be worth saying "science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov" or something like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of "1970s projects", Star Trek is referred to as The Original Series out of the blue. Given that this latter term wasn't introduced until later, and it hasn't been explained in the article, it should probably be changed at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "Klingon" is introduced to the prose with no explanation of who they are; a link and a brief reference to "Klingon, an alien race" or something like that, would deal with this problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's great Miyagawa. Thanks for your work on the article. I'm happy to pass this now, although would recommend giving it a Peer Review to focus on the prose before taking it to FAC. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added that missing Spectre cite as well now. Miyagawa (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

religious views

[edit]

How is it relevant for the article that he was quite intolerant against other people´s beliefs? I don´t see what that has to do with Star Trek or his other productions.77.11.168.91 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with Star Trek or his other productions. That is why it is under a religious views section. This is an overall biography, not simply a list of his production work. Miyagawa (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removal of the Star Trek category

[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks this doesn't make any sense? Dlabtot (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Fern's book/s

[edit]

In the legacy section, second paragraph list has:

Yvonne Fern's book, Gene Roddenberry: The Last Conversation, detailed a series of conversations she had with Roddenberry over the last months of his life.

I've not read this book (only just seen listings for it today). However, I have read Inside The Mind Of Gene Roddenberry by Yvonne Fern (and still have a copy). The description of The Last Conversation matches the content of Inside The Mind. Inside The Mind is listed on Amazon UK (as well as The Last Conversation). My paperback copy (bought in England) says "A Paperback Original 1995. (C)". From Amazon, The Last Conversation was 1994 hardback. I suspect one is a repackage of the other. Could be a edited versions, or revised etc. If someone knows exactly, could we say in the articul. Maybe at least note that the title Inside The Mind Of Gene Roddenberry exists.

Dannman (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor Command or Harbor Master

[edit]

Its says that Roddenberry wrote an episode ("Coastal Security") for Harbormaster produced by Frederick Zif - but I don't see his name mentioned on wither the wiki page or imdb. I do see him mentioned as a writer from a single episode of Harbor Command, produced by Zif. This episode is called "The Psyciartist". Can anyone help clear this up?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gene_Roddenberry&oldid=1210304595"