Talk:Stargate SG-1/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'm starting the GA review!

Images

• talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'll address these issues later today. Thanks for your time. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed except for the last one, which will be handled at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Milky way stargate with very detailed glyphs2.svg. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a shame to lose this image as it appears to be the only version of the Milky Way stargate design on Wikipedia that has all of the glyphs properly oriented (bottom of glyph to center of gate). 198.183.6.22 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article text

• As explained in the series' backstory, the Goa'uld transported human slaves from Earth to other habitable planets across the galaxy thousands of years ago and now pose as gods of Ancient Earth mythologies, particularly Egyptian mythology. - Didn't they also pose as gods thousands of years ago?
  talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

To my knowledge, the show never clearly explains when the Goa'uld started posing as gods. Probably the farthest flashback is in the feature film when the alien-to-be-Ra kidnaps the human boy to use him as a host, but it's not entirely clear if the alien already posed as Ra back then. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm thinking of the alternative timeline when SG-1 goes back to ancient Egypt.

talk) 02:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• The NID probably needs to be explained a bit better in the "Goa'uld arc" section.
  talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Rewritten to "rogue agents of a shadowy intelligence agency on Earth, the

NID, repeatedly attempt to take control ..." – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Much better.

talk) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• I think the "Cast" list would be clearer if it began with the characters' names.
  talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Actor as Character style is the de facto list style for cast information per

WP:MOSFILM. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Are they the Bible? :) I tend not to pay attention to non-binding guidelines like that, especially when they make articles more confusing, but do what you want here.

talk) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• A human alien who leaves his home planet Langara at the end of season 5 after witnessing Daniel Jackson's lethal sacrifice and the following gleeful reaction of his planet's leaders. - The first we hear of Jackson's death is in the description of Quinn. I find this a bit odd.
  talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Completely rewritten for clarification. The sentence was technically correct since Jackson's sacrifice was lethal ("

Lethal is something that is capable of causing death to a living being"), but the implication that Jackson actually died is incorrect because of a sci-fi twist, so the reader never actually heard of Jackson's death first here either. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The new version is much better - thanks.

talk) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• All episodes were filmed in 16:9 wide-screen, although Stargate SG-1 was broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio in its first years. - Can you explain what effect this would have had?
  talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I don't understand your question ("would have had" in what respect?). Even nowadays, it's still somewhat common in my country to air American TV shows in 4:3 although they've been filmed in 16:9 for ages. Showtime probably aired SG-1 in 4:3 in 1997-2002 because wide-screen TV sets were uncommon back then, so their behavior doesn't strike me as unusual. Why SG-1 was filmed in 16:9 from the beginning - I don't remember ever hearing or reading an explanation for this. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't even know what this distinction (16:9 vs. 4:3) means, so some sort of explanation as to what it indicates and what the differences might mean for the viewer would be helpful.

talk) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Found source to clarify transition from 4:3 to 16:9. See Article.

talk) 04:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• The design of the SGC base should match the real Cheyenne Mountain complex as much as possible. - The "should" in this sentence is confusing - according to whom?
  talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I watched the DVD extra again, but it seems Hudolin's explanation is more ambiguous than the notes I once took (which served as the basis of the article). I've remove the sentence because I don't currently know where I could find a replacement source. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For the design of the Ori and the Priors in season 9, the art department looked at Japanese and Samurai for costuming. - Japanese and Samurai what? These adjectives require a noun!
  talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

User:Black Sabre clarified it as "the art department looked at Japanese and Samurai garments for costume design". – sgeureka ^t•c 06:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• The Prior and Doci face scarification was inspired by remote jungle tribes for the mystical aspects - I'm not quite sure what this sentence is saying.
  talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Expanded to say "Art director James Robbins found the face painting, scarification and burns of remote jungle tribes mystical, , serving as inspiration for the face scarification of the Priors and the Doci." – sgeureka ^t•c 06:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Music" section is a bit choppy.
  talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I rearranged some bits in the first paragraph. The second and third paragraph seemed alright for the most part. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Composer Joel Goldsmith adapted David Arnold's Stargate feature film score for SG-1's opening title theme, which remained the same during the run of Stargate SG-1 and its direct-to-DVD films. - This seems to be covered in the "Music" section already - does it also need to be covered in the "Opening sequence" section?
  talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

While it could technically be considered redundant, repeating it is also helpful because readers may just want to read certain sections in long articles and skip the Music section. Other shows have different music composers and opening titles composers, so it's not clear that the relevant info might be found in the Music section. Lastly, as a reader, I'd simply expect to read about the origin of the opening titles theme in a section called "Opening title sequence". One sentence of redundance is a good trade-off. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that readers might skip to only one section, but this article is already quite long and detailed. Some redundancy might have to be sacrificed.

talk) 15:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I've thought this through again but come to my old conclusion that it should be left like it is. The "Music" section could go without a mention of the main title score much better than the "Opening title sequence" section, but then the End title score (which can't be moved to the OTS section) would be all alone in the "Music" section and read off instead. I can't lose the redundancy and make it work. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

talk) 03:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• By far, the weakest section is the "Themes and allusions" section, which doesn't really explain the themes of the show. For example, one of the main themes that the show explores is religion. One could argue that it casts institutionalized religion as a controlling, manipulative, and violent system. The show is also feminist to a degree, with Samantha Carter's character making several overt comments about women in the military (there are also plot lines about women in combat and other gender issues). Do any of your sources address these basic issues?
  talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

For the writing of this article including this section, I used up nearly all sources I already own (lots of magazines and DVDs), or could research for free. Expansion is possible with a few books like Stepping Through the Stargate and Reading Stargate, but I don't intend to spend money on my GAs. Additionally, the article already is 100kB (Mythology of Stargate is set up as the respective subarticle), and as a scientist, Themes aren't my strongest suit anyway (both in interest and non-rambling writing). – sgeureka ^t•c 06:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are entire books on this series that haven't been used in this article? This is a serious deficiency in my opinion. Have you tried getting the books through interlibrary loan from your library? Have you tried getting them from other Wikipedians interested in Stargate? Have you asked other Wikipedians interested in Stargate to work on this section? (For example, one of the books is available from my library. I could check it out and send it to you.)

talk) 15:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

By using some books and writing two paragraphs on this topic, I felt and feel the broadness requirement of

WP:STARGATE or several SG forums/communities before on occasion, but have always had problems getting the kind of responses I was hoping for. Unless you really want to go through the pain and send me a few scanned pages from library books (forget postal mail), I'd just wait and see what usable books turn up on eBay and amazon marketplace eventually. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm going to look at the book available at my library and see. Since this section does not actually focus on the themes of the show, but rather its mythology, I think that is really missing some key elements.

talk) 03:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• On August 21, 2006, a few days after the premiere of SG-1's milestone episode "200", the Sci Fi Channel confirmed that Stargate SG-1 was not being renewed for an eleventh season.[105] According to the Sci Fi Channel's Mark Stern, the decision was not ratings-based. - What was the decision based on then?
  talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The answer is, SCI FI denied to comment for the most part besides this (probably to appease angry fans). Meanwhile, Variety (of course) mentioned the radically dropped ratings; Multichannel News mentioned dropped ratings, age, expensive production, bad exchange ratings, and lack of promotion; GateWorld mentioned dropped ratings, lack of promotion, removal of anchor show Battlestar Galactica, and new competition as possible reasons for the cancellation. I think I could pull up some interviews where the producers vaguely said it was a mix of reasons. But there was no official explanation.[1] – sgeureka ^t•c 06:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should include some of this reporting. "Official reasons" are usually bogus anyway (politicians always say they are leaving to be "with their families", for example). The three sources you mention have some overlap - why not mention at least the drop in ratings?

talk) 15:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Expanded. I used Variety and Multichannel News (Multichannel News were the first to report the cancellation). – sgeureka ^t•c 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Broadcast and release" section feels overly detailed to me. This is the only time that I got bogged down in the article. Is it possible to cut this down a bit? Here are some examples:
  talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It used to be even longer, and 4 paragraphs for a diverse 10-year US broadcast&ratings history was the best I could do as a years-long broadcast and ratings freak. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Although Stargate SG-1 received almost no media mention outside hard-core science fiction circles, the show was consistently the most-watched program (including theatrical movies) on Showtime - Perhaps this should be incorporated into the "reception" section?

The first part of the sentence already was in the Reception section, so I cut that part. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we need all of the details about syndication?

I don't know. It would take an American to judge the necessity of US syndication. International syndication is already very brief for its scope and relative weight. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sci Fi switched the broadcast of SG-1 to widescreen and aired new episodes of Stargate SG-1 in the 9 p.m. Friday slot between The Dead Zone and Farscape.[35][93] Meanwhile, older SG-1 episodes aired on Sci Fi in a four-hour block every Monday at 7 p.m. and once a week in US syndication six months after their premiere on Sci Fi. - Can this be cut?

I took out the widescreen mention since it was already noted before in the article, but in what slot a show aired seems like the entire purpose of a Boradcast section. The mention of The Dead Zone and Farscape may be of interest since tweo Farscape actors joined SG-1, but I'd be fine if you want to remove that too. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Home video release" subsection, in particular, seems overly detailed.

I removed some numbers because they may indeed have been overwhelming/confusing. However, part of the confusion is because the British DVD releases were a mess (SG-1 was one of the first TV shows to be released on DVD, and the distributers were still trying to figure out what works best). Additionally, 4 of the 5 FAs (

Arrested_Development_(TV_series)#DVD_releases) with shorter runs and much clearer season-only releases have more detailed DVD descriptions. Only Doctor_Who#Viewership is shorter (reason unknown). I also believe that 2 paragraphs are better than keeping this article around. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• The "Critical response" section seems a bit thin. The focus on the reviews of the first episode, for example, seems unrepresentative. Are there really so few reviews of the series afterwards? Also, are there SF reviews that should be considered?
  talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The present reviews for the pilot episode were the only usable ones I could (still) find online. I have many sci-fi magazines with episode reviews for SG-1 beginning with season 5, but they don't really focus on the series as a whole and usually lack the scholarly out-of-universe detachment. I can't access my books at the moment, but I don't remember anything usuable there or I'd have punched up this section already. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look at all of the sources later today.

• Cinemablend is not a reliable source. Note that their writers are not professionals.
  talk) 04:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The embedded video is the source, and the speaker in the video is Amanda Tapping, actress in SG-1. This video is (so far) the only place where she announced her participation in the (yet to be produced) third SG-1 film. This source can be removed once the film goes into production. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like a blog. Generally blogs are not considered reliable. Is there a reason to think this meets
  talk) 04:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The blog owner is Joseph Mallozzi, executive producer on SG-1. This particular blog entry was a Q&A with Brad Wright, also executive producer of SG-1. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This link is broken and is also a student newspaper. Can this information really not be found anywhere else? Student reporters are so unreliable. :)
  talk) 04:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'll look for a replacement, or will remove the information otherwise (it's not essential). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All removed. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Gateworld is cited in other publications as a wonderful fan site, but is it described as a reliable source? It is used so much in the article that I think we have to establish it is reliable beyond any doubt.
  talk) 05:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Although GW is technically a fansite, it is also an established SG news site (MGM has repeatedly given them exclusive news stories), and the interviews with the cast and crew are reliable per se (GW hosts the interviews as audio files, so the interviews are obviously not made up). The fansite part shouldn't matter as long as GW is just used on wikipedia for news and interviews. Since reliable mainstream sources only very rarely cover Stargate, they will label GW as a reliable source even more rarely (i.e. never apart from the evidence already present). But the SG cast&crew seem extremely positive towards GW - how else would GW get 40 or 50 interviews a year with the cast&crew, host the blogs of over half a dozen cast&crew members, and have special deals with MGM? (I know my word doesn't count for much, but I've also read GW almost daily since 2001, and they have yet to screw up.) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm wondering how necessary it is to rely on this source, though. I checked
      talk) 04:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I do not have access to LexisNexis. If someone looks long and hard enough there or buys the right books (it's not like I haven't looked or don't have print sources myself), GW may be able to be replaced to a certain extent through third-party sources (my guess: 30%). Other parts may also be sourced through lots of self-published sources like DVD audio commentaries, but wikipedia often looks down upon this too. I am all for further improvement of the article and I value your input, but isn't your suggestion focusing too much on if the article uses the best sources (a legitimate concern for FAC), and not if GW serves as an adequate source (as per WP:WIAGA)? – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, this is all speculation. I'm concerned that a site used to promote the show by the studio is being used so heavily. I would be happy to get a second opinion on the source.
          talk) 04:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
        • Continued at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#GateWorld. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is comingsoon.net reliable?
  talk) 05:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It's probably quicker to replace this source with a better one (which I'll do) instead of finding evidence that this is reliable. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced with direct MGM source. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Amazon is not a reliable source for the kinds of detailed information you are sourcing. We need an actual publication.
  talk) 05:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This source is just meant to source the release date, and in all FACs I've seen, Amazon could always be used as a source for a DVD release date. Amazon UK is (as far as I am aware) the prefered source for RC2 DVD release dates. The other parts of the sentence are technically unsourced, but anyone willing to browse through the other 50 amazon UK DVD pages will see the information is true (I own all of SG-1 as a mix of British, German and Dutch DVDs, and know the information is correct). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've actually found Amazon to be unreliable in their details about products, so I would encourage you to find another source, if at all possible.
      talk) 04:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Oddly, the article's date for this DVD (which was there before I started editing this article) differs from the Amazon UK ref which I added later. Either I screwed up big time, or you're about right and Amazon messed with the dates in the meantime. I'll have to check up on that, but I can already say that Amazon UK is as good as it can get for RC2 releases, and reliability is even harder to justify for other online stores. I am unaware of other publications of sufficient reliability that record DVD RC2 release dates. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed the ref since I trimmed the release date to just the year (which is noted on the DVD cover). – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is tvshowsondvd.com reliable?
  talk) 05:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Because the corresponding GateWorld news article used this as a source. It's possible to link to the slim DVDs on Amazon, but this wouldn't cover that the slim packaging is new. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems like a tenuous reason to call the source reliable, in my opinion.
      talk) 04:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I put the GateWorld source there. Anyone being vaguely familiar with online shops will see that the slimboxes exist, and it's now all about the first release date. Even if tvshowsonDVD.com, Amazon, and GateWorld differed on an exact date (they don't), they'd still agree it was summer 2006 in the US, and the article claims nothing else. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is thefutoncritic.com reliable?
  talk) 05:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Because they host an image of the mentioned TV Guide cover, and GateWorld and tvguide.com don't host it anymore (GW and tvguide.com still have the news article without the TV Guide cover, but don't mention what the cover says). I think the TV Guide cover is also briefly shown in a TV/DVD special feature, but I'd have to look it up (which I'll probably do, although that will make the cover harder to verify for the reader than a quick weblink). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a reason for the source to be reliable. Easy web links are not always possible.
      talk) 04:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Does the cover of this TV Guide issue serve as its own primary source? Because then I'd just remove the ref and still leave the info in. (Unfortunately, the special feature I was talking about is a TV special that didn't make it to the DVDs, and I just had it still saved to my harddrive.) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you can use the TV Guide issue, yes.
          talk) 04:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]

I have responded to the source questions, but will have to leave the prose issues for later (probably tomorrow). Thank you very much so far for your thorough review. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to do a thorough job with the article, but I am very busy in real-life at the moment (unfortunately, I was unable to predict this when I put the article up for GAN). I may not be able to address all issues in the 7-day-on-hold time limit, so if you're unwilling to extend the limit for a few days, I'd also be fine with a failed GAN for the time being. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely willing to extend the limit. I'm only working on Wikipedia for a little bit each day (I'm attempting to finish my dissertation), so I can respond a little bit every day. How about that?

talk) 04:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you so much for bearing with me. It seems I managed to take the last major hurdle for my job deadline today, so I'll try to have your concerns addressed by tomorrow evening. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all.

talk) 02:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Note to anyone who comes by: this is an active review and the article is still on hold as it is actively being improved! :)

talk) 15:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, I'll move to the other side of the country in a few hours and I don't know when I can get back an internet connection. It could be tomorrow in the best case, Tuesday (if my boss allows it after work), or in one or two months worst case. Please do what you feel is best for the article. I don't want to hold up wiki procedure more than I already have. (Things can still be improved when I can devote more time to it than now.) Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that at that this point I'm going to have to fail the article for two main reasons: 2b) Considering there is an abundance of reliable, fact-checked material published on Stargate (I spent some time on both LexisNexis and NewsBank to verify this), I do not think we are justified in using Gateworld for news items. As we discovered with the report about why the show was cancelled, the independent media reported different reasons than did Gateworld; 3a) The "themes" section is really too weak, as it does not actually discuss the themes of the show, but rather the show's mythology. My library is getting the relevant books for this section, but I myself am going out of town for a week, so I won't be able to send you anything for a while.