Jump to content

Talk:Demons (Star Trek: Enterprise)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDemons (Star Trek: Enterprise) 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.
Good topic starDemons (Star Trek: Enterprise) is part of the Star Trek: Enterprise (season 4) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 9, 2013Good article nomineeListed
May 25, 2016Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 15, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Demons" guest starred Peter Weller, who is set to appear in the 2013 film Star Trek Into Darkness?
Current status: Good article

Fair use rationale for Image:Demons (ENT episode).jpg

[edit]

Image:Demons (ENT episode).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Demons (Star Trek: Enterprise)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bruno Russell (talk · contribs) 18:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have looked. Believe good article should be awarded against criteriaBruno Russell (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't mean to be cheeky, but are you intending to review the article, or should I ask for this review page to be deleted? Thanks. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To get this review moving, I'll add some comments.

"He had previously appeared in several parts of the same genre" That sentence seems a bit clumsy "2.0/4%" Change to 2/4%

Other than that I'd be happy if the article passed, although we may need to do something about the dormant reviewer RetroLord 01:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requestion a second opinion as the original reviewer hasn't responding to requests to conduct a review. Miyagawa (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Miyagawa, I think I'd go with your original instinct, and have the review page deleted so a new reviewer can be found in the normal way. My reading is that the original reviewer didn't know what was involved, and thought the original sentence was sufficient; we both know that a GA review requires far more than that, and needs to address the GA criteria. However, it may be too late for that, now that we have some comments from Retrolord that have been addressed, in which case we can send the nomination back into the review pool so a GA2 page is what's created when a real reviewer signs up. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Demons (Star Trek: Enterprise)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 01:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review in progress...

Lead

[edit]
  • and directed by Star Trek: The Next Generation alumnus LeVar Burton
  • Peter Weller guest starred as John Frederick Paxton, having previously appeared in Coto's Odyssey 5.

Plot

[edit]

Production

[edit]
  • The title of the episode was explained by writer Manny Coto as referring "to our own personal demons".
    • Read the source a bit closer. He's not really talking about the title itself as much as he talking about the meaning of the episode that uses that title.[1] Yes, the title is "Demons", but the demons are the demons of intolerance within humanity as exemplified by the episode. So it's more like, "Writer Manny Coto explains that the "demons" in the episode refers to the demons of intolerance that humanity must defeat before they can form the United Federation of Planets." Or something along those lines. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He said that the two-parter was to show that the final hurdle that humanity must pass before they can form the Federation, which their own intolerance of other races.
  • Colonel Philip Green (the leading villain of World War III)

Reception and home media release

[edit]
  • Jay Garmon, whilst compiling a list of the best episodes of Enterprise for TechRepublic, listed "Demons" and "Terra Prime" as the third best. He thought that Peter Weller "stole the show", and that it created a "solid conclusion" to the show despite the following episode, "These Are the Voyages...".'
    • I removed the period that appeared after this three dot ellipsis which is also part of a title name. Because the title of the cited episode uses three dots, I seem to recall my English teacher saying 1) don't use double punctuation when the title already has punctuation (for example, if it includes a question mark or exclamation), and 2) don't follow an ellipsis used at the end of a sentence with a final period. It's possible that my chosen style is at odds with some other style, which is why I've made a note of it here. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:
    A few issues listed 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. 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:
    Issues with prose listed above. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've answered all the points above. Again, thanks for the reviews recently - I've got to admit - they do come out a great deal better following your reviews than when they go in! Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a second opinion as the main reviewer has been blocked for three months. Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over the issues that were brought up and your corrections, and I feel that you have successfully changed what needed to be fixed. I will pass this article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demons (Star Trek: Enterprise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]