Template:Did you know nominations/Star Trek: Enterprise (season 2)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Miyagawa (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Star Trek: Enterprise (season 2)

 * ... that executive producer Rick Berman had hoped that Patrick Stewart (pictured) might be able to direct an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise during the second season?


 * ALT1:... that it was hoped that Patrick Stewart (pictured) might be able to direct an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise during the second season?
 * ALT2:... that executive producer Rick Berman had hoped that Patrick Stewart (pictured) might be able to direct an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise during the second season?
 * ALT3:... that it was hoped that Patrick Stewart (pictured) might be able to direct an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise during the second season?
 * Reviewed: Husayn ibn Hamdan

5x expanded by Miyagawa (talk). Self-nominated at 21:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Article size is okay, article filing date is okay. Article expansion is from 1092 B (185 words) "readable prose size" to 11 kB (1897 words), well over 5x.  That measure doesn't include the episodes table, which is much of the article and if included would mean it is less than 5x, but that's okay with me.  Article is neutral, sourcing is present, don't see any copyvio issues.  QPQ was done.


 * In terms of content, some reviews of the season as it was airing would be nice, not just retrospectives. Article has some issues with apostrophe usage ("found it's feet" should be "found its feet", "didn't win any" should be "did not win any", don't know if there are others).


 * As for the proposed hooks, they are all variations on the same – but Stewart didn't direct any episodes, so it's a big nothing. Seems to me the hook should be about the season that did air.  Also, shouldn't the hook (and the lead in the article itself) reflect that at the time, the show was called Enterprise, not Star Trek: Enterprise?  So how about:


 * ALT4: ... that one reviewer has suggested that the second season of Enterprise represented a complete failure to comprehend what had gone wrong during the first season?


 * It's a bit more hooky in that readers may not know what is being referred to, and will thus click through. And after all, Enterprise was the biggest failure of the whole Star Trek franchise, so it's fair enough for the hook to reflect that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm happy with Alt4. Miyagawa (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, we're settled on the hook. I saw you made some copyedits for prose and usage issues, but there are still some others:
 * The lead still needs to indicate that the series was called just Enterprise when it originally aired.
 * "with one reviewer stating that the series did not learnt from the mistakes of the first season and another called it childish for the lack of consequences seen in the episodes" – try "learn" instead of "learnt" and "calling" instead of "called" and "being seen" for "seen".
 * "cliff hanger" should be "cliffhanger".
 * "that they'd see" – no contractions except in quotes.
 * The first usage in the "Ratings" section – "4.9/8 percent" – should briefly explain what those two metrics are.
 * Is the first ratings number available for the "Horizon" episode? It should be included to make that figure parallel in form with the others.
 * When these are resolved, we should be ready for the main page. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Those should all be resolved with the exception of the "Horizon" issue - sadly that's something that bugs me as well, but archive.org didn't pick up the relevant websites for the full ratings information. Miyagawa (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the explanation you added for the ratings is giving the "in the demo" numbers; the usual practice is to give the overall number first, then the demo number second. I think the fact that the show was called Enterprise during the season should be in the lead text, not buried in a Note – the title difference was considered significant at the time, and for example the SciFiNow review you cite makes mocking reference to it.  I also think, as I mentioned earlier above, that you should incorporate some contemporary reviews and reactions – this Deseret News piece from May 2003 and this Washington Times piece from June 2003 are examples of what you can find out there.  I know we're sort of past the point of DYK criteria here, but the GA review you got was really cursory, so I think it's important to improve these aspects of the article a bit. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)