Talk:Divergence (Star Trek: Enterprise)

Divergence (Star Trek: Enterprise) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Divergence (Star Trek: Enterprise) is part of the Star Trek: Enterprise (season 4) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 10, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
May 25, 2016	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Star Trek High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Divergence (ENT episode).jpg[edit]

Image:Divergence (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 05:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 21:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take this one. Hope to have a review up by tomorrow. Courcelles 21:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 11 is dead. Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added an archiveurl. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No images available, at all? Writer, director, etc? Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to find one of James Avery that had been uploaded five days ago. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Commander Charles "Trip" Tucker III (Connor Trinneer) read to conduct repairs." extra word? Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"However the crew realise that the transporter cannot be used at warp" They didn't know the transporter didn't work at warp speed before? Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's 50% that they don't use the transporter much, and 50% that the writers used a bit of exposition to help the plot along. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""Divergence" is the 16th episode of the fourth season of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Enterprise, and originally aired on February 25, 2005." originally aired in what country... and on what channel? Also, that's a run-on sentence. Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It was the fourth episode to be written " Are we talking Enterprise, Star Trek, or all TV here? Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""Divergence" was the second part of a two part story which started with "Affliction"." Watch random tense changes. Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"at warp in order for Trip to be transferred by zip line between the ships. Despite some difficulties, Trip is transferred from the Columbia to the Enterprise." This is highly repetitive. Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would be worth explaining what Section 31 is, at least briefly... Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a very brief description to the first paragraph section under plot.

"Reed is questioned by Archer over his Section 31 contacts, but his knowledge is limited. Meanwhile, Phlox and Antaak (John Schuck) have made progress on the cure and inform General K'Vagh (James Avery). K'Vagh in turn contacts Fleet Admiral Krell (Wayne Grace) and is told that the programme is shut down, and that if a cure is not completed in three days then the colony will be destroyed." This entire section is just clunky. Needs copy-editing. Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"On Enterprise, following a discussion with Reed's Section 31 contact Harris (Eric Pierpoint), Archer " WHo talked to Harris, Archer or Reed? Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the entire paragraph in line with the previous bullet. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shuoldn't read liek this, "A Klingon battlecruiser under the command of Krell and two Bird of Prey (Star Trek) arrive in orbit and claim the colony" The parantheticals should be hidden. Alkso, "Birds of Prey" or something. Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief that was inept of me. I managed to switch the parantheticals into the wrong section. I've fixed it. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense to a non-Star Trek fan "The virus remains contagious, and causes the ridges to disapate on any infected Klingon but no other effects." Ridges should not be first mentioned way down here. Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked it into the first paragraph of the plot as the explanation for that element is covered in the article for the previous episode. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"with second-unit filming taking place for the episode 'United'involving most of the main cast" is just odd-sounding with the stacked -ing verbs. Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've redrafted the entire start of that paragraph. It was all a bunch of muddled rubbish. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Eric Pierpoint and Wayne Grace filmed their scenes as it was across minimal sets" is also clunky. Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was utter garbage. I've redrafted it. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens joined the staff as writers during season four, and prior to "Divergence" had already wrote the episodes The Forge", "Observer Effect" and "United".' The past participle of "write" is "written", not "wrote"; another run-on sentence. Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I'd also somehow missed the first quotation mark before "The Forge" (also fixed). Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In a post to an internet forum about The Lost World regarding Enterprise" is unclear due to stacked prepositional phrases and needs rephrasing. Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped it - the important bit was the quote, it didn't really need to say where it came from. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"They were joined in Divergence by Wayne" Quote marks for episode title? Courcelles 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blu-Ray needs the hyphen. Courcelles 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs information on international DVD releases. Courcelles 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find a better source than Amazon.co.uk. I tried all the archive.org versions of the normal review websites in the UK but had no success. Miyagawa (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I could go haven't really even hit on all the places this article needs a through copyedit, and I can't see any way to pass it without it getting one. Courcelles 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and given it a copyedit. There was a lot of crud in there. I'm sorry - it was honestly one of the worst articles I've written in a long time. I might have had a headcold when I wrote it, but I didn't think that one of the symptoms would a lack of comprehension for the English language. Miyagawa (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence of the article, surely you meant UPN, not CBS? Courcelles 22:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I don't know what the hell I'm thinking. Yes, UPN. CBS might have the rights now, but it didn't then. Miyagawa (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 3, why is this forum post reliable? Not sure about ref 6, either, Courcelles 21:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The forum post is reliable as it's from the writers themselves (as a primary source). I've removed number 6 - I'd argue it is reliable due to the endorsement of the official Star Trek.com website, but it was unnecessary as the Zap2it archived source covered the point. Miyagawa (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know muhc about internet forums, I'll admit, but how do we know who is behind any of those screen names? Courcelles 22:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Reeves-Stevenses were two of the writers on The Lost World. That particular forum is the archived version of the official forum from the official website. The account itself was one of the administrative accounts. So I think it's unlikely that it wasn't them - certainly I don't think an administrator could post as two of the writers on the official forum. The real Reeves-Stevenses would find out pretty quickly and get the account shut down. But yes, 99% of the time, I wouldn't trust anyone's identity on a random forum. Miyagawa (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as it is only being used for a quote from them, I think we're fine. Let me give it one final read. Courcelles 21:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold for a week. Courcelles 21:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Can't say how much better this reads now than it did. Well done, passed as GA. Courcelles 21:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]