Talk:Daedalus (Star Trek: Enterprise)/GA2

GA Review
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. BenLinus  1214 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. :( BenLinus  1214 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. BenLinus  1214 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: