# Talk:Demons (Star Trek: Enterprise)

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)

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

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)
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)

Thanks for taking a look, I've reworded that sentence and made the other change as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
Review in progress...


### Lead
and directed by Star Trek: The Next Generation alumnus LeVar Burton
He has directed 29 Star Trek episodes.  Do we really need to call him a Star Trek: The Next Generation alumnus at this point? Isn't he a director in his own right?  I don't feel strongly about this, but I am curious what you think. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair point, it doesn't need to be in the lead. Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
While there they discover a plot involving a xenophobic human organisation
Why not name the organization in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, this was because the organization was "Terra Prime", the same as the following episode... so I thought it was best to avoid repeating "Terra Prime" twice in two sentences (even if it was in different contexts). Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Peter Weller guest starred as John Frederick Paxton, having previously appeared in Coto's Odyssey 5.
I'm not sure what the relevance is to Odyssey 5.  Are you trying to say that was the last time he appeared in a science fiction production? Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I swapped it out with a comment about his appearing in Into Darkness - probably more relevant now (the article was actually written before that film's release). Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The critical response to the episode was mostly positive.
Can you say more about why critics liked the episode in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Added something more specific. Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


### Plot
Captain Jonathan Archer (Scott Bakula) meets with Samuels, who is concerned that news of the child will stir anti-alien sentiment. Lt. Malcolm Reed (Dominic Keating) is ordered by Archer to meet with his Section 31 contact, Harris (Eric Pierpoint). He is informed that Khori was a member of the Terra Prime movement.
The plot neglects to briefly connect the "anti-alien sentiment" with what the "Terra Prime" movement actually is for the reader. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I worked it in specifically in the following sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
On Earth, Samuels agrees to get the case file on Khouri for Archer, after he reveals that he knows that Samuels was formerly a member of Terra Prime.
That doesn't work.  This sentence is trying to say that Archer reveals that he knows Samuels was once a member of Terra Prime, but the way it is written, it sounds like Samuels knows this about himself.  Please rewrite this by reversing the order.  Archer reveals he knows Samuels was a member of Terra Prime in his youth, convincing Samuels to hand over the case file on Kohuri. Or something along those lines. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Done, but not precisely in the same way. Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile on the ship, Ensign Travis Mayweather (Anthony Montgomery) gives a tour of the Enterprise to reporter Gannet Brooks (Johanna Watts), whom he was formerly in a relationship with.
"Meanwhile on the Enterprise, Ensign Travis Mayweather (Anthony Montgomery) gives his ex-girlfriend reporter Gannet Brooks (Johanna Watts) a tour of the ship." Or something like that. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
On the Moon, Paxton is watching a video...
"On the Moon, Paxoton watches a video..." Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
After he leaves, Paxton injects himself in his neck.
"After he leaves, Paxton injects himself in the neck with an unknown substance." Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Phlox discovered that the hair has traces of a substance used in a mining facility on the Moon.
"Phlox reports that the hair sample contains traces of a substance..." Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The ship flies to Mars, where it takes control of the verteron array, which is used to deflect comets from Earth.
"The ship takes off from the Moon and travels at warp speed to Mars where it lands, taking control of the verteron array which protects the Earth from comets." Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
He fires a warning shot from the array back at the Moon and issues his demand for all non-humans to leave the Sol System."
"Paxton uses the array to fire a warning shot at the Moon while issuing an ultimatum—all non-humans must immediately leave Earth." Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


### Production
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)
Changed pretty much to what you've suggested - I just added that Coto was also the showrunner for the series (at least during that season) as I also mention it in the lead. Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
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.
Huh? Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
That should have had an "is" following the comma. (Added now) Miyagawa (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for trying, but could you rewrite the entire sentence for clarity?  It currently reads very poorly.  Here is a copy of the current version: "He said that the two-parter was to show that the final hurdle that humanity must pass before they can form the Federation, which is their own intolerance of other races." That makes for a torturous read!  And I assume, you do not want to torture our readers! :) Viriditas (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to drop the line now as it is made redundant by the change to to previous sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Colonel Philip Green (the leading villain of World War III)
The actual link to WWIII here should be World War III (Star Trek), and the text should be made clear that this refers to the Star Trek universe.  Like this: "the leading villain of World War III in the Star Trek universe". Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I've piped the link and worded in the same manner as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


### Reception and home media release
 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)
Thanks, I didn't know that - I thought it looked awkward, so I'm glad that's resolved. Miyagawa (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


### Criteria
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Issues with prose listed above. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
I've requested a second opinion as the main reviewer has been blocked for three months. Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
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)

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050925052123/http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=41786206b8967 to http://www.trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=41786206b8967
Corrected formatting/usage for http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1%2C1002%2C272%7C95180%7C1%7C%2C00.html
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)