Talk:Daedalus (Star Trek: Enterprise)

Untitled

Anyone know why this episode is called Daedalus? I kept expecting to see a Daedalus-class starship! I am guessing it's something to do with the mythical Daedalus. It would be nice if someone in-the-know could write a couple of sentences about it on the main page. E.g. "The name of this episode gets its name from...". Marky1981 09:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

{{Trivia|date=December 2007}}

• References are made to Zefram Cochrane's drinking habits, as seen in Star Trek: First Contact.
• The title of the episode is a reference to the myth of Daedalus and Icarus. Daedalus devised wax wings which his son used without caution. He flew too close to the sun, had his wings melt off and then fell to his death. This is paralleled by Emory letting his son use the transporter without fully analyzing the risks first.
• Archer refers to a talk with his father on the day he entered flight training. However in the episode "Borderland" it is established that his father died of Clarke's Syndrome when he was 12. It is doubtful that flight training in Starfleet began at an age below 12.
• The episode includes the line "worship your shadow", a reference to Lexx, where this line is featured heavily.

GA Review

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

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)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I'll be reviewing this article for GA. BenLinus1214^talk 01:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Comments

• Looking at the last GAN, the main reason for failing was on the plot section—it apparently left out a major subplot. Can you tell me about how that has been fixed? I've never seen this episode (or that much Star Trek, for that matter), so could you just fill me in? Thanks.
• The main problem with the article is that its reviews are not from reliable sources—one is a fan site and one seems to just be a hobby site by one unnotable person. So I'm putting it on hold for now. If you cannot find any more reviews, I'm afraid that this won't be able to become a GA. Sorry. :( BenLinus1214^talk 02:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look at this. Following the previous review, another editor (who has kindly been doing this to all the Enterprise articles) re-wrote the entire plot section directly after watching the episode. As for the fan site/review, you're quite right to bring these up (although I haven't been asked about them for a while). TrekNation is generally used as a reliable source not so much because of the current website but because historically it actually formed the news portion of the official Star Trek website. So you'd click on news on one version of the site and it'd take you out to TrekNation. As it stands now, it remains one of only four fan sites which are linked to directly from the official website (although sadly, one of those four was taken offline earlier in the year - but I haven't used it here). Jammer's Reviews is used for a different purpose. He originally created his review website during the original run of Voyager back in the late 90s and his reviews were considered so important at the time by the writers for the series that he was flown out to LA and asked to pitch story ideas. None of them were taken up, but based on that event we've been using him as a credible source for reviews only as the crew thought highly enough of them to take him seriously. Miyagawa (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for telling me. The article now meets the reliable sources criterion, which in turn now fulfills my scope concerns. Pass. BenLinus1214^talk 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Ratings

The Nielsen ratings share for this article is listed as 1.9/4 and the reference is an article from Zap2it from Saturday January 15, the day after the episode aired. These are the overnight ratings or "fast national ratings" which are (usually) different from the final ratings. TVTango lists[1] the final ratings for this episode as 1.9/3 and average viewers as 3 million.

This might just be a typo since the Zap2it article says "The WB nipped the 1.9.3 for UPN's "Enterprise."" and it seems as if they wrote 1.9.3 instead of 1.9/3 and the claimed ratings share of 1.9/4 is not in the source article.[2] -- 109.79.169.104 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Either way, it's been wrong since it was added in 2014 and was not noticed by any of the Good Article reviews. -- 109.79.169.104 (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed it and added TV Tango as an alternative source to confirm the final ratings numbers and also a source of the average number of viewers. -- 109.79.169.104 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)