Talk:Extinction (Star Trek: Enterprise)

Extinction (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.
Review: April 17, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Star Trek Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that a picture be added to this 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.

POV[edit]

It first aired on September 24, 2003 and is often considered the worst episode of season three.

Come now... I rather enjoyed it, and there was a spiffy parody of it on Five-Minute Voyager.. Where's the citation for this anyhow? DrWho42 02:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 09:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get the review in a day or two. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status – Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review[edit]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

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:

Comments and discussion[edit]

The first look gives me an impression of a good article itself. Well written with good focus. Some points to be regarded are:

The first three paragraphs of production section draws heavily from cite 2 which ought to be replaced. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is (and generally with Enterprise episodes) is that the production information is very limited - so I would suspect that cite 2 is the only production information available on the episode, anywhere. There was never a production related book released for the series (not even an e-book!) with the exception of some production info on the first few episodes of the first season at the back of the novelization of "Broken Bow". So the majority of information on the production of Enterprise is effectively mined from old versions of the official Star Trek website. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether a reference for the next episode will do any good or not. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't previously included it in order articles. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A breakdown of lead section into three paragraphs will be better. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've broken it into three paragraphs. I've previously used that as my standard, but was trying out a two paragraph format instead. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

The article have passed the review. All looks fine and properly fitted. Cites are of no great problem and GA standard is achieved. Though it was a quick review, I feel that all is fine with the article. A better cited article is expected on the future, but for now, it's ready to roll out. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 18:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Extinction (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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashamed?[edit]

I read that LeVar Burton was "ashamed" of this episode but it wasn't from a good source and it was a very selective quote, entirely missing any context. It also seemed unlikely that he would say something like that publicly. I was eventually able to track down the original quote that seems to be the source of this claim.

In an interview with Dreamwatch magazine Doug Mirabello who was the personal assistant to Rick Berman, said

People generally knew when an [Enterprise] episode was bad. We even had one director go to the producers and tell them he was ashamed to direct the episode where our crew turned into lizard people.

TrekBBS summary and Sci Fi Pulse Transcript of Doug Mirabello interview

Readers seem to have deduced that the only Enterprise episode that fits this description is Extinction and of course the director was LeVar Burton. This assumes that Mirabello was mistaken when he said "turned into lizard people" since in in this episode they do not appear to be turning into lizards. Also please note that quote was edited to include "[Enterprise]" in brackets, it is possible that Mirabello was referring to the much derided Star Trek: Voyager episode Threshold where the crew turn into amphibians (or less likely Genesis (Star Trek: The Next Generation) where Data's cat devolves into a lizard).

I had thought maybe I could use this quote and say it was According to Doug Mirabello but it is still a logical leap to assume he really was even talking about this episode, or LeVar Burton. Fans can make that sort of logical leap but there is too much assumption and original research for an encyclopedia to make any such claims, at least not based on the indirect sources that never actually mention Burton.

I would have liked to include more more Production details, particularly about LeVar Burton and any views he may have had about the episode, but unfortunately this claim is unusable. Having spent the time trying to sort this out I mention it here in case anyone else can find a better source, but more to save anyone else from wasting time on this like I just did. -- 109.76.211.106 (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]