Talk:Katherine Pulaski
Katherine Pulaski 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. Review: January 28, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled[edit]
Diana Muldaur also played a marooned shipwreck survivor on an early TNG episode... as the Enterprise races to rescue her, she is 'kept company' by the bridge crew in shifts... her conversations with Picard are memorable.
When the Enterprise reaches the planet, just within the window for her survival,they find... dust. A time warp had enabled them to establish a link with a woman who had lived, and died, a hundred years before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.173.129 (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
What a dumb waste of time on a non existent person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.84.218 (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Name changed to Kate[edit]
It seems rather odd to stress that Muldaur asked for the character's name to be changed to Kate (actually mentioned twice) without telling us what the name was originally meant to be. --Khajidha (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'd add it if I could source it to something reliable. Miyagawa (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Katherine Pulaski/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 05:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation[edit]
Images[edit]
Infobox[edit]
Lead[edit]
- WP:OVERLINK: MD, fictional character, science fiction television. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Starfleet starship USS Enterprise-D
- Muldaur had appeared twice in Star Trek: The Original Series as different characters in the episodes "Return to Tomorrow" and "Is There in Truth No Beauty?",
- There are several reasons to avoid using the comma here; the most persuasive is the fact that using three punctuation marks in a row looks strange. Instead of arguing over different style guides and their recommendations, it's best to just end the sentence without a comma and start a new one with "She later worked with series creator Gene Roddenberry on a pilot for the series Planet Earth." Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Reviewers of Pulaski were critical of her behaviour
- and compared her to Dr. Leonard McCoy from The Original Series.
- Episodes such as "Unnatural Selection" which featured Pulaski in a leading role have divided opinions.
- Her relationships with Lt. Commmander Data have been highlighted, but with the android taking the role of Spock.
- Other considerations of that partnership led to speculations on 'slavery' due to the android's lack of emotions; while Pulaski has been compared to Friedrich Nietzsche in her opinions about Data.
- @Miyagawa: On a final read, I've chosen to remove the anecdote about her name change from the lead. Per the sources, it's not important and shouldn't be in the lead. Also, as a previous editor has noted in the above section on the talk page, we don't even have enough information to discuss it.[1] Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Miyagawa: In the lead it says, "Muldaur's favourite episode in her role as Pulaski was 'Elementary, Dear Data'". Does this appear in the body of the article? Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note, I've temporarily removed it from the lead. I think it should go in the body of the article. The source doesn't actually say it's her fave episode, although that's a somewhat fair paraphrase (but not one I would use). The source says it's an episode that she thinks "worked best".[2] Try to revisit the source and then add it back to the body, and maybe the lead. It would help greatly if you could find other supporting sources for this statement as well, just to make sure it is indeed her "fave" ep. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Miyagawa: I think the summary of the criticism in the lead needs a rewrite. Simply writing "Reviewers criticized Pulaski's behaviour, describing her as annoying" is not helpful. As readers, we want to know why she is annoying. I'll take a stab at it, and you can join in. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Miyagawa: I have further copyedited the lead. Please review. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Miyagawa: I just reread the lead and moved some content around. I have tried to read as if I didn't know anything about the topic (not easy to do, which is why I avoided it for several days). When I did, I realized that the lead doesn't give a good general impression of what she did and what she accomplished. Think about adding two sentences to the first paragraph about the major accomplishments of her character as mentioned in the appearances section. For example, she operated on Picard, etc. Viriditas (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've added a couple of lines based on her Appearances to the end of the first paragraph and moved the line from the end of the first to the end of the second. I also noticed a strange edit in the middle of one of the paragraphs in appearances and removed it. Miyagawa (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Concept and development[edit]
- Muldaur had previously played the parts of two separate characters (also doctors) in separate episodes of the The Original Series
- Dr. Miranda Jones in "Is There in Truth No Beauty?".
- After this she worked with the creator of Star Trek..
- after getting to know him and his wife
- As with her TOS appearances
- The producers were unaware of her previous involvement in those Roddenberry series
- and proposed that she should take the part without that knowledge
- which she described as "I thought the whole thing just began very exciting...
- That's a poor use of a quote. "Which she described as 'I thought the whole thing'" doesn't work. Try to integrate a quote into a sentence; in other words, quote efficiently and effectively. There are many ways to do this. One way is to do it like this: "She reviewed 15 VHS cassettes containing the first season, which she described as "very exciting". Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The vacancy on the main cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation was caused by the departure of Gates McFadden as Dr. Beverly Crusher.
- Executive producer Rick Berman later said that "There were those who believed at the end of the first season...
- Roddenberry decided to write Crusher out rather than killing the character in order to allow for McFadden's return in the future.
- @Miyagawa: There's still problems with this section. I made a large copyedit to fix the structural narrative.[3] Please review and see if you can't also tighten it up a bit. Notice, for example, how I made the chronology flow naturally: Roddenberry drops McFadden > Berman disagrees > Roddenberry writes her out > McFadden departs > New vacancy > Producers contact Muldaur. Do you see how the narrative now flows logically as opposed to before? See if you can't re-read this section and do the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Miyagawa: Made additional copyedits to this section and removed the bit about her not auditioning for TOS (that came out of nowhere with no explanation), made the full usage of TOS consistent (you were using both ST:TOS and just TOS, not consistent), and removed the quote which had little to do with the character, but retained the "hard work" part, which is relevant. Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- This section is done, unless there are other concerns. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Appearances[edit]
- The structure and grouping in this episode isn't really clear. Is it just a chronological retelling of her major appearances? Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- However, the transporter would later save Pulaski's life in "Unnatural Selection" after she was infected with a disease that rapidly aged her which originated from the planet Gagarin IV. She manages to work out a way to remove the infection using the transporters, and is returned to her previous appearance.
- @Miyagawa:. I've copyedited this section; please review. Can you move the "Pen Pals" detail from novels to appearances, and expand upon it if necessary? Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've made a couple of minor copyedits (I initially changed immigrate to emigrate, but after looking it up properly, I thought migrate was more appropriate). I've moved the "Pen Pals" information to the section, slotting it into the medical-centric paragraph (that's the correct order of episodes, and the subject matter fits quite nicely). Miyagawa (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Reception and commentary[edit]
- In their 1998 book, Star Trek 101
- Her relationship with Data was further considered in the book Enterprise Zones: Critical Positions on Star Trek, where she is described as "challenging Data in terms of his machine nature" in "The Child", and suggesting that his emotionless state is comparative to slavery and referencing Maya Angelou's 1969 work I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.
- Pulaski was also shown as demonstrating the Star Trek opinion on cloning in the episode "Up The Long Ladder" according the book Deep Space and Sacred Time: Star Trek in the American Mythos, as after the theft of both hers and Riker's genetic material by colonists in order to produce new clones to increase their population, the duo destroy the incubation chambers "as if the they were truly demonic abominations".
- Another mouthful! I only understand this because I know the topic, but I'm afraid other readers will not. What is the "Start Trek opinion" on cloning? You're also missing the word "to" here: "according the book Deep Space..." Split these sentences up and explain them to the reader. You explain the "opinion" in so many words at the end of the section, but gently introduce a summary of it in the beginning. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Miyagawa:. We're almost done, but I'm having trouble with this section. You write:
Her relationship with Data was further considered in the book Enterprise Zones: Critical Positions on Star Trek
- I would like to note the author here, as there appear to be many. Also, I'm not exactly sure what this means:
she is described as "challenging Data in terms of his machine nature" in "The Child".
- What is the nature of this challenge? You also write:
it was suggested that his emotionless state is comparative to slavery due to the reference in the episode to Maya Angelou's 1969 work I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.
- How is it comparable? Describe what you mean. Also:
DeCandido considered the same event in "The Child" and instead compared it to the relationship between Spock and McCoy from The Original Series.
See also[edit]
Notes[edit]
References[edit]
External links[edit]
- No link to startrek.com? Viriditas (talk)
Criteria[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Lead: copyedits needed (see above)
- Concept and development: copyedits needed (see above)
- Reception and commentary: copyedits needed (see above)
- Appearances: copyedits needed (see above)
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- WP:OVERLINK: lead
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Minor issues. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- So, those minor issues turned into major issues once my eyes were opened to what was really going on here. Let's face it, this article wasn't ready for GA; I thought a few minor changes could salvage it, but I was wrong. On the other hand, the nominator saw the same problems as I did and made an excellent effort to fix them. I helped with copyedting, but I did more work than I wanted to do. To pass this article, I removed material that deviated from the topic or duplicated material found in the appearances sections. In some cases, I found that the wrong quote or source was listed and I fixed that as well. If the nominator wants to add the cloning material back, it should attempt to 1) stay on the topic of Pulaski and her opinions about cloning, and 2) refrain from duplicating the appearance section. The previous version did both, and that didn't work. If you're going to put in the reception section, then cite a notable opinion about the cloning. The previous version didn't do this and merely repeated the appearance material. With that material removed, I'm passing it in its current form. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Minor issues. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Pulaski overview[edit]
Is this a troll edit? "Reviewers praised Pulaski's approach, as well as her ability to fit in with the crew. Critics noted her unique warm presence in contrast to the icier other regular characters and noted her more interesting relationship with the captain, as she would stand up to him."
Maybe I'm missing something but she was the opposite of these things. Oh yes her unique warm presence compared to the Icy Geordie LeForge...lol https://en.luquay.com/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 05:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- That change was made in edit https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Katherine_Pulaski&oldid=984253899.
- You can see the diff here https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Katherine_Pulaski&type=revision&diff=984253899&oldid=970804137.
- The last paragraph of the intro before the edit:
- Reviewers criticized Pulaski's approach, as well as her inability to fit in with the crew. Critics noted that her transporter phobia was reminiscent of Dr. Leonard McCoy from the original Star Trek, as was her relationship with Data; Pulaski's interaction with Data raised comparisons to that of McCoy and Spock from the original Star Trek. Episodes featuring Pulaski in a leading role produced divided opinions among critics, with some describing "Unnatural Selection" as a key episode while others argued that it showed only the negative side of her role.
- whereas, after the edit, it reads:
- Reviewers praised Pulaski's approach, as well as her ability to fit in with the crew. Critics noted that her unique warm presence in contrast to the icier other regular characters and noted the more her more interesting relationship with the Captain as she would stand up to him. Episodes featuring Pulaski in a leading role produced united opinions among critics describing "Unnatural Selection" as a key episode.
- This completely changes the meaning of the statement. I think it should be reverted. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that, so I have to leave it to y'all. --2A02:908:4B11:8820:5CB6:6F5B:8EFF:7F53 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have restored the original paragraph, but I note that it (as well as the previous version) violates the WP:LEAD guideline, because it introduces information that isn't present in the article body. The lead section should simply summarize the rest of the article. Everything in the lead section should be described more fully in the article, and this paragraph just doesn't comply. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Reception and Commentary section lacks criticism of character[edit]
As if it's done by someone patting himself on the back because he's saying nice things about a character who is generally disliked by Star Trek fans (gee what a hero 🙄) More negative criticism of the character, of which there's ample, is in order here.Alialiac (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The Next Generation absences[edit]
The Outrageous Okona Q Who Goojrr (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Media and drama good articles
- GA-Class Star Trek articles
- High-importance Star Trek articles
- WikiProject Star Trek articles
- GA-Class television articles
- Low-importance television articles
- GA-Class Episode coverage articles
- Unknown-importance Episode coverage articles
- Episode coverage task force articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- GA-Class science fiction articles
- Low-importance science fiction articles
- WikiProject Science Fiction articles
- GA-Class fictional character articles
- WikiProject Fictional characters articles
- GA-Class WikiProject Women articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women articles