Talk:Demons (Star Trek: Enterprise)/GA2

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Gen. Quon in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

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