Talk:Daedalus (Star Trek: Enterprise)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 02:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Resolved

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Images

Resolved

• OK. License and rationale check out. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Resolved

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved

• It was the second script to be written
  • No need for "to be". Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Removed. Miyagawa (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK: Show runner (avoid multiple blue links in a row). Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Removed. Miyagawa (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• MOS:CONTRACTION: "but wasn't pleased". Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Was already fixed by the time I went to edit. Miyagawa (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• 'resultant episode
  • Keep it simple. Just say "completed" episode. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• The episode originally aired on January 14, 2005
  • Comma goes after the year. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Ok. Miyagawa (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• It received a Nielsen rating of 1.9/4 percent
  • Period, end of sentence. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• and the critics opinions were mixed, but with praise directed at the relationship between Dr. Erickson, his daughter Danica (Leslie Silva) and Captain Jonathan Archer (Scott Bakula).
  • New sentence: "Critical reception was mixed...." Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• with praise directed at the relationship
  • That doesn't really mean anything. Figure out why the critics liked the relationship and explain it. Try to avoid using "praise directed at". Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Redrafted to be more specific. Miyagawa (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Plot

✗ Not done

• Archer, Subcommander T'Pol (Jolene Blalock) and scans indicate that it is Emory's son.
  • Rewrite. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• You're missing the subplot with Tucker and T'Pol. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Production

Resolved

• However, the production suffered a power failure on the final day of filming. But this only caused a two hour delay to the production of some interviews for features for the DVD release of the season.
  • Rewrite. No need for "however" and it would work better as one sentence. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• The episode was directed by David Straiton, who had been directing episodes of the series since the first season and was his second of this season following the second-part of "Storm Front".
  • Rewrite. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Done - and I've trimmed out the season one mention. It didn't need to be there. Miyagawa (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Reception and home media release

Resolved

• This means that it was seen by 1.9 percent of all households, and 4 percent of all those watching television at the time of broadcast.
  • Remove or rewrite "This means". Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Changed to "Therefore". Miyagawa (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Resolved

• OK. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links

Resolved

• Is the TV.com link necessary? Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Nope. Removed it. Miyagawa (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

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:

   Copyedits needed (see above)

   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. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Plot is incomplete.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stable.

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:

   See above. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

   You said you were going to fix the plot more than a week ago and there's still no mention of the major subplot and its continuity with the previous episode, Kir'Shara. Specifically, the confirmation of the remission of T'Pol's Pa'nar syndrome and her relationship with Trip. I should also point out that the plot summary in the lead is weak (when "the crew of the Enterprise help Dr. Emory Erickson conduct experimental transporter tests, a dangerous anomaly is detected on board") and the critical reception in the lead is ambiguous ("received positively due to the character development"). Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

   Hi - don't know if this is the protocol here (being the first time I have involved myself with a GA review), but I think the outstanding review issues have been fully addressed within my recent plot-centric edits to the article [and, actually, it was those recent edits that got this page on my watchlist, which made me aware of, and led me to this review].) Jabberjawjapan (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

   @Jabberjawjapan: you didn't ping me and I don't have this on my watchlist, so I can only assume that you and the nom would prefer a different reviewer. Otherwise, I'm happy to revisit it. Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

   I am not particularly fussed who reviews this - as I said, I am unfamiliar with the GA process, who has what pages watched, etc etc, and was endeavouring to be helpful. If you would like to revisit it, and that fits with the protocols, then please feel free to do so! Jabberjawjapan (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)