Talk:Dominion War

Order and All Episodes

It would be better to mention the episodes in order. For example, the Season 4 section discussed "To the Death" before "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost". But to the Death was episode 23 while HF and PL were 11 and 12 respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.53.164 (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition some episodes aren't mentioned. One example is Broken Link, from season 4.

Attempts at corrections have been reversed. But these corrections are needed.

Comment

Conflict infobox restored. This time it utilizes the FICTIONAL BATTLE infobox. In addition I have also added various information regarding the story arc and it storyline uses in Star Trek Enterprise, especially in the Xindi Crisis. I felt that the page concentrated too much on the critical review and hardly any at all on the actual story itself or its results, most of which can be laid out in an infobox. As it suggests the Fictional Battle Infobox is used for Out-of-Reality occurences and be used to seperate context from the real to the cannonical. Rhatsa26X (talk) 16:31 27 June 2010 (CDT)

I have to say, the specific reasons this and many ST articles were being refused GA status was a: no reference to the television shows critical reception, b: total lack of sources, c: main text of article written entirely from an in-universe perspective and focusing entirely on narrative, and d: a section on results of the fictional war that involved fan speculation. I like this new Fictional War box, especially the info relating it to other story-arcs. It is a better fit than the original 'real war' box which quite rightly had to be removed until a better idea came along, but GA status will hang on the other changes previously mentioned. If we revert the tone of the main article to focus on story narrative, GA would be automatically denied again. Ethdhelwen (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dominion War/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SuperMarioMan 20:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Prose: The article as submitted at WP:GAN contained quite widespread prose problems. I believe that a series of copy-edits has rectified the situation, but I would encourage further checks to ensure that the article runs in a smooth and consistent fashion. As an American topic, American writing systems would be the expectation for an article of this sort: hence, the spelling should be "realize" rather than "realise", with "Dr. Bashir" instead of "Dr Bashir". As noted below, dates provided in references should not combine two or more styles; furthermore, numbers of days should not be ordinals (e.g. "9th"). As the article's subject is from fiction, the tense used for in-universe plot detail and description should predominantly be the present.
   • Manual of Style: Again, I have copy-edited the article thoroughly to remove clear problems or inconsistencies. However, one definite problem that remains is the brief lead section. At just one paragraph, the introduction is really too short for an article of this length, and should therefore be expanded. I would recommend using the last two sentences of the current lead as a starting point for at least one additional paragraph, which could chart the production and reception aspects of the Dominion War arc in greater detail. For the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and its elements, the first paragraph could be lengthened with a few basic explanations: for example, mention that a space station is the primary setting of the series, and that the production company was Paramount Television, to complement the description of Deep Space Nine as an "American science-fiction television series".

   Conception:

   • After 18 months of Deep Space Nine exposition, the producers decided to characterize this as an "anti-Federation".
     Up to this sentence, the subject has been the Gamma Quadrant, but presumably the "this" refers to the Dominion.
   • Executive producer Michael Piller suggested the idea that the Founders of the Dominion be the race to which Odo belongs, towards the end of Season Two, and discovered that Behr and Wolfe had also discussed this possibility.
     Does the clause in bold refer to the end of production on Season Two, or the end of its broadcast? A word appears to be missing here.

   Development: Season Three:

   • Behr became full executive producer at the midpoint of the season, after the departure of Michael Piller.
     Since names such as Behr and Piller appear quite regularly in the article, would it make sense to explain their contributions in a specially-dedicated paragraph in the "Conception" section? This would avoid short sentences, such as the one highlighted above, which could distract the reader from the article's principal subject. Furthermore, it would eliminate the need for references to "writer", "producer" or "executive producer" at the start of each section, which to me make the text repetitive in some places. The statement above could also do with a source. On a side note, what role did Jim Crocker (mentioned once, in the "Conception" section) perform in the production of Deep Space Nine?

   Reception: Critical reception:

   • He selected "The Search", "In the Pale Moonlight" and "Far Beyond the Stars" as their favorite episodes for their portrayal of darker themes and creating a change in direction
     His own personal favourites, or both his and others'? Can this be clarified?

   Spin-off media:

   • The URL beside DeCandido's name is registering as dead, and redirects to a home page rather than the subpage cited. It would also be better, with regard to the MoS, to relocate the URL to the main "External links" section rather than leave it in the article text.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No problems with the sources not being reliable, just their presentation in a number of places:

   • Not all episode references (e.g. "The Jem'Hadar", reference 18) include both "writer" and "story" credits. Does this mean that the personnel responsible for the plot concept also went on to write the final script, or do the writer credits just need to be added to the citations?
   • Reference 8, the Season One DVD, would benefit from Template:Cite video, as used for 2 and 17. If 17 includes an ASIN number, should one be added for the other DVD references?
   • Why are references 61 and 74, both from interviews in the Erdmann and Block book, presented in a different manner to references such as 16, which use a template?
   • Reference 82 (the Fontana interview) could be improved with author and/or date information, if it exists.
   • Could details such as page number, publisher and ISBN be added to reference 94 from Blair?
   • References 17, 21, 36, 57, 59, 71, 77 (script citations) partly use the dates system of MONTH/DAY/YEAR, contrasting with retrieval dates, which are listed in digits. Dates should be presented in a consistent manner throughout the article.
   • Finally, would you consider listing book sources with more than one citation attached (Erdmann and Block is the prime example) in a bibliography separate from the references list? Citations to such publications could then be presented in shorthand form with a page number (e.g. to use reference 2 as an example, "Erdmann and Block, 97") which would make the main list easier to navigate. However, this is more of a side suggestion than a review recommendation.

   Synopsis:

   • This section would benefit if there were episode citations throughout its text. Currently, "Emissary" is cited, but no other episodes.

   Conception:

   • Behr said that the earliest mention of the Dominion was purposely planted in the comic Season Two Ferengi episode, "Rules of Acquisition", to leave the audience with an impression of "how important could it be?"
     Is this attributable to page 97 of the companion book cited further along in the "Conception" section? Quotations, in particular, need clear sourcing.
   • These three were intended to represent the front of an ancient civilization coupled together by fear, to contrast with the unity of the Federation enabled by bonds of friendship.
     Again, which precise page is being cited? A rule of a minimum of one citation per sentence would increase verifiability. In the finale paragraph of "Conception", the first three sentences are not clearly tied to a particular reference: if reference 7 (IGN) is also intended to support preceding sentences, this could be made more explicit through duplication. I can perceive a similar scenario with the second paragraph of the subsection "Season Three: introducing the Founders": page 158 of the companion guide substantiates the final sentence, but the sourcing of the previous two sentences is either absent or ambiguous. As such, I would recommend increasing the frequency of citations in the "Development" section to one for each sentence.

   Development: Season Two:

   • The actions of the Dominion are contrasted with the reactions of the regular characters to the Skrreea refugees.
     Is there dialogue to support this statement? Without substantiation, it may border on interpretative, rather than descriptive, use of a primary source, which contradicts guidelines detailed at WP:PRIMARY.

   Development: Season Three:

   • Regular characters observe the alien's struggle to adjust to a society with rules different to those of his native culture.
     Like the comment on the Skrreea in "Sanctuary", this appears to exceed description and sail close to interpretation in the absence of dialogue quotations.
   • Further episodes investigate the psychology of the Jem'Hadar.
     Which ones are these? Could these be cited?
   • The plot establishes an atmosphere of suspicion, initiated by the shapeshifters' abilities to assume other identities, which forms the basis of plots for Season Four.
     Currently, this appears to be a statement of original thought based on a primary source, and would need attribution to a secondary source to avoid violation of WP:OR.

   Development: Season Four:

   • This episode is one of a few in this season to explore themes of suspicion and paranoia, and their effect upon societies and relationships, building up to "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost".
     Discussion of themes, in particular, requires citation of secondary sources. It cannot exist on the foundation of primary sources alone, since the presence of themes is not commonly explicitly evoked within character dialogue.
   • This seems to further the Founders' goal of the destabilization of the Alpha Quadrant as a prelude to their own invasion.
     An episode is used as a citation at the end of this sentence, but is there dialogue to support the idea of political relations being threatened? "Seem" probably falls into the category of WP:WEASELWORDS.

   Development: Season Six:

   • The episodes "Behind the Lines" and "A Time to Stand" (Season Six) require citation, preferably using Template:Cite episode as is the case for other episodes.
   • Dukat is the first but not the only character in Season Six to face the pain of loss in conflict.
     Could other characters be offered here as examples?

   Development: Season Seven:

   • Ronald D. Moore has stated, "We wanted to kill the Defiant as a statement on how tough the Breen were. We thought that would rock the characters and the audience."
     The preceding recommendation about the "Rules of Acquisition" episode appears necessary here, for a different quotation. Which page(s) from the companion guide apply in terms of attribution?
   • Allusions to genocide contrast with ethical discussion concerning the engineered "Founders disease" and a potential cure.
     A moral debate ensues on what constitutes genocide.
     Character dialogue, presented in the same manner as "The Dogs of War" script excerpt further along the paragraph, would help to support these statements.
   • "Extreme Measures" needs a citation.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Major aspects: The article includes both in-universe plot detail and out-of-universe production and reception information in good balance.
   • Focus: As suggested in the response to Criterion 1, a few sentences to settle to issue of which production personnel did what, throughout the course of the Dominion War arc, would lend better structure to the article in terms of its coverage of production.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • Some subjective words (e.g. in "Critical Reception", the assertion that O'Connor added "enticingly") have been removed. As it currently stands, the article maintains a neutral tone, and the critical sections are not skewed in favour of the opinions of a particular commentator.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   • Definitely in a stable condition.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • The infobox image is necessary for identification of the article subject, and the illustrative image of the Jem'Hadar adds to the reader's understanding of the topic. However, File:USS Sitak and USS Majestic.png would have stronger justification if the caption mentioned the precise battle and episode depicted in the image.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This initial edit is just to open the review. I will submit comments in due course, after a thorough reading of the subject article. SuperMarioMan 20:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sincere apologies for the lateness in updating this page — other Wikipedia issues have cropped up in the interim. SuperMarioMan 05:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the article will be of Good standard if the issues detailed are addressed. Since its first GA review, the article has been balanced with the addition of real-world information, and its sourcing strengthened effectively. I shall place this review on hold for one week for other editors to make adjustments or perform additional copy-edits. SuperMarioMan 20:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not feel that the article can meet the GA criteria without implementation of the suggested improvements. As a week has passed with no edits made to the article, I have failed this nomination for the time being. Feel free to renominate the article once the problems highlighted have been acted upon. All the best. SuperMarioMan 00:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all of the issues. I shall resubmit for another review. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Point of view?

How can this article be biased when the subject is sy-fy. I am sorry to alienate all the Trekkers, but when the "truth" of the article doesnt exist due to being fiction, it is hard to be neutal. BTW, go Feds!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.179.96 (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dominion War/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments: Overall, a strong article, and I'm proud about the amount of effort that's gone into it. It also does a fairly good job of being accessible to non-Star Trek fans, which is very important for this kind of article. That said, it has some structural and stylistic issues that need to be addressed.

• The Synopsis section does a good job explaining the overall plot arc, but there's a lot of repetition in overall ideas with the majority of the plot information present in the development section. I think the best way to seperate content that should go versus that which should stay is in part what can be clearly sourced and verified beyond the primary source. Paragraphs like "The Season Three finale turned out to differ significantly from the production staff's conceptual vision..." are good, while the preceding paragraph, " 'Improbable Cause' initiates a two-part adventure concerning the search for the Founders' homeworld..." is largely plot fluff that can be condensed. Remember that some of the content regarded episode themes is more directly relevant to the episode itself rather than this overarching context. This is the biggest issue facing the article. Really, you need to go at it with a red pen and cut it to ribbons to make the rest stronger.
• On the image side: there's not much defensible rationale for including File:USS Majestic hit.jpg, File:STDS9Ep226.jpg, and File:USS Sitak and USS Majestic.png. The latter two can pretty much definitely go, although if you strengthen the rationale the first Majestic shot could be included. A better idea based on the article content would be to replace the shot with one of the Defiant getting blown up, given that it's got more weight and defense in the article body. You could also add pictures of the creative staff if there's the room and it makes sense in the locations, but that's not a GA concern.
• The reception section is fairly thin in terms of critical views, but you've done a fairly good job at making the best of what you've got. I'll have to see if I can get you access to more sources from my university, but for what you have now it's good enough for GA.
• What makes Television Heaven, TrekPlace.com, Twiztv reliable sources?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Any progress being made on the above? :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed two of the images and changed the rationale for File:STDS9Ep226.jpg. I also removed the Television Heaven and TrekPlace.com sources as well as the information cited by them. The other source, Twiztv, once provided copies of television scripts so an offline copy of the script could be cited. I should have the first issue fixed soon. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the bot, this article's review has been "on hold" for improvements for 44 days, which is longer than any other article currently on hold. There have been no comments on the review page for two and a half weeks. Can we try to get this wrapped up, one way or the other? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing due to inactivity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section 31 as a combatant???

This makes no sense to me. Autonomous or no, Section 31 is part of the Federation. It shouldn't, IMHO, be listed as a separate combatant. Famartin (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Marquis is comprised mainly of Federation citizens and starfleet officers, however they are rogue. Similarly, Section 31 is comprised of Starfleet intelligence officers and is a rogue organization. It does not obey Federation law, and it does not technically answer to anyone. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not keen on Maquis being listed either, but since Section 31 is likely smaller than either, and includes CURRENT Starfleet officers, its the biggest flaw with the combatant list, IMHO. Famartin (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dominion War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090430065531/http://www.irosf.com:80/q/zine/article/10421 to http://www.irosf.com/q/zine/article/10421

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)